PlayCalling - WTF!!!!

[Guest TerraTor]

what is this rediculous end around bullshit? Nice handoff to Kevin Jones of all people. Turner you are a total jackass. Pretend for once you arent your brother and take your head outta your ass.

 

Monster Game - Lance Briggs, only new rich guy on the team thats doing anything

[Pixote]

what is this rediculous end around bullshit? Nice handoff to Kevin Jones of all people. Turner you are a total jackass. Pretend for once you arent your brother and take your head outta your ass.

 

Monster Game - Lance Briggs, only new rich guy on the team thats doing anything

 

Give him another year or 2 and he will be demanding a new contract "or else".

[jason]

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.

[Pixote]

The end around, if successful, would have eaten up a lot of clock, and I think that is why it was called. Unfortunately the Philly defense read it well and it was stuffed quickly before it had a chance to develop.

[nfoligno]

I think Turner did better this game, but there are still a few bonehead plays that just make a rational person scratch their heads.

 

I think Turner has done well this year. Do I agree w/ every playcall? Hell no. But I have a feeling we would call out particular playcalls of any coach, from any game. Overall though, when I look at the talent level on offense, I simply think they are exceeding expectations. Granted, expectations were VERY low, but the point is, our offense is playing better than most expected.

 

-Anytime McKie gets the ball it's pretty much a bad decision

 

Agreed. When we throw it to him, he is instantly dropped. He has no moves to give him any chance for YAC. And there is simply no reason to give him the ball over Forte.

 

-The size advantage the Bears' TEs have was used well, but not enough

 

Agreed we need to focus on the TE position even more, but I like much of what I have been seeing. I loved it when I saw Olsen split out wide. Still want to see a 3 TE package.

 

-The late end-around was idiotic

 

Why? In the 2nd to last series, Hester had a run for 15 yards. We were facing the league's top run defense. Forte averaged 2.3 ypc for the game. I have absolutely no issue trying to do something different. The reality is, we have an average offense, at best, and were facing a very good defense. I liked our trying different things last night.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed. It was an improved game plan/call...but still a few too many head-scratchers.

 

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.

[jason]

-The late end-around was idiotic

 

Why? In the 2nd to last series, Hester had a run for 15 yards. We were facing the league's top run defense. Forte averaged 2.3 ypc for the game. I have absolutely no issue trying to do something different. The reality is, we have an average offense, at best, and were facing a very good defense. I liked our trying different things last night.

 

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.

[azbearsfan]

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.

 

 

You forgot the biggest reason:

 

Cause I am an NFL GM and if I don't agree with it then its idiotic.

[azbearsfan]

I think Turner did better this game, but there are still a few bonehead plays that just make a rational person scratch their heads.

 

I think Turner has done well this year. Do I agree w/ every playcall? Hell no. But I have a feeling we would call out particular playcalls of any coach, from any game. Overall though, when I look at the talent level on offense, I simply think they are exceeding expectations. Granted, expectations were VERY low, but the point is, our offense is playing better than most expected.

 

-Anytime McKie gets the ball it's pretty much a bad decision

 

Agreed. When we throw it to him, he is instantly dropped. He has no moves to give him any chance for YAC. And there is simply no reason to give him the ball over Forte.

 

-The size advantage the Bears' TEs have was used well, but not enough

 

Agreed we need to focus on the TE position even more, but I like much of what I have been seeing. I loved it when I saw Olsen split out wide. Still want to see a 3 TE package.

 

-The late end-around was idiotic

 

Why? In the 2nd to last series, Hester had a run for 15 yards. We were facing the league's top run defense. Forte averaged 2.3 ypc for the game. I have absolutely no issue trying to do something different. The reality is, we have an average offense, at best, and were facing a very good defense. I liked our trying different things last night.

 

 

I think Turner has done well this year. Do I agree w/ every playcall? Hell no. But I have a feeling we would call out particular playcalls of any coach, from any game. Overall though, when I look at the talent level on offense, I simply think they are exceeding expectations. Granted, expectations were VERY low, but the point is, our offense is playing better than most expected.

 

I agree. And the better Orton plays the better Turner looks.

 

Agreed. When we throw it to him, he is instantly dropped. He has no moves to give him any chance for YAC. And there is simply no reason to give him the ball over Forte.

 

I think that has to do with the player himself. I thought Polite outplayed him in preseason and showed more running and catching it. I would have been happier if we would have dropped McKie for Polite.

 

Agreed we need to focus on the TE position even more, but I like much of what I have been seeing. I loved it when I saw Olsen split out wide. Still want to see a 3 TE package.

 

I think we are using the TE's well. But I have to admit, every time Olsen catches it I am waiting for the fumble.

 

 

 

Why? In the 2nd to last series, Hester had a run for 15 yards. We were facing the league's top run defense. Forte averaged 2.3 ypc for the game. I have absolutely no issue trying to do something different. The reality is, we have an average offense, at best, and were facing a very good defense. I liked our trying different things last night.

 

He doesn't like anything that isn't Forte up the middle. lol. The fact is that Philly had stacked the run and anything we ran was not going anywhere. Play action would have been good their but you want to keep the clock running,

[nfoligno]

I think that has to do with the player himself. I thought Polite outplayed him in preseason and showed more running and catching it. I would have been happier if we would have dropped McKie for Polite.

 

I am not at all against the idea of using a FB for more than blocking, but I simply do not believe we have a FB very good at doing such. Frankly, I don't think much of McKie's blocking either.

 

On a side, w/o trying to be too great of an ass, by questioning the staff for keeping McKie over Polite, are you not doing similar to what you have been ripping Jason for? If we use prior reasoning, we must simply assume McKie is the best option because those who get paid to make such decisions made the call.

 

I think we are using the TE's well. But I have to admit, every time Olsen catches it I am waiting for the fumble.

 

True, but everytime I see a pass, I cringe as I am waiting to see the ball bounce off the receivers hands.

 

He doesn't like anything that isn't Forte up the middle. lol. The fact is that Philly had stacked the run and anything we ran was not going anywhere. Play action would have been good their but you want to keep the clock running

 

I do understand Jason's comment, and running near the sideline when you are trying to kill the clock is the most legit point (IMHO), but still disagree.

[nfoligno]

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.

 

I would disagree w/ this. 1st run netted 2 yards. Then we passed for 4. Then we were in 3rd and 4, and it was not automatic we would run. If we ran and didn't pick up the 1st, Phily would have plenty of time to score. 1st down was more important here than clock, and Phily was not fully committed to just the run. This is when Forte hit them for 10. Forte then picked up 2 and then 4 yards. This time, on 3rd and 4, clock was everything, and Phily was sold out to stuff the run. Sorry, but while a Forte run may not have been a bad call, trying something different to pick up the 1st down is just as good in my book.

 

2) Running an end-around has a higher risk of turnover.

 

How much higher? I understand the logic, but if you send a rookie into a pile, I think there is a decent chance of his being stripped, especially when that is going to be just what the defense is going after.

 

3) There was just over a minute left, and the point was to run down the clock first, and get the first down second.

 

Basically agree, but I just don't think running the end around was as bad, for example, as a pass here. You are still killing the clock. And that is what we did. We didn't get the first, but also kept the clock running, and punted w/ about 28 seconds remaining, giving them 17 seconds for their final drive, w/o timeouts.

 

I don't mind trying something different, but I think it's idiotic to do it at that time.

 

And I simply disagree. I understand your logic, but at the same time, for an offense that has been simply so predictable, I can not attack the OC for trying something different.

[Da Bears 88]

Give him another year or 2 and he will be demanding a new contract "or else".

Unbelievable hate you have for the guy.

[Pixote]

Unbelievable hate you have for the guy.

 

No, I love the guy, I agree with most on the forum, he is playing to the highest level of all our LBs, heck he is playing the best of any defensive or offensive player on the team at this point. He is our team MVP at this point in the season.

 

However, I still say, he and his agent will be looking to redo his contract, which he accepted but was not entirely happy with, in a year or two.

[jason]

You forgot the biggest reason:

 

Cause I am an NFL GM and if I don't agree with it then its idiotic.

 

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.

[azbearsfan]

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.

 

 

lol Calm down tough guy.

 

Or its the kind of play that worked earlier and the kind that Jackson from Philly ran for two first downs.

 

pee-wee indeed

[jason]

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.

I would disagree w/ this. 1st run netted 2 yards. Then we passed for 4. Then we were in 3rd and 4, and it was not automatic we would run. If we ran and didn't pick up the 1st, Phily would have plenty of time to score. 1st down was more important here than clock, and Phily was not fully committed to just the run. This is when Forte hit them for 10. Forte then picked up 2 and then 4 yards. This time, on 3rd and 4, clock was everything, and Phily was sold out to stuff the run. Sorry, but while a Forte run may not have been a bad call, trying something different to pick up the 1st down is just as good in my book.

 

2) Running an end-around has a higher risk of turnover.

How much higher? I understand the logic, but if you send a rookie into a pile, I think there is a decent chance of his being stripped, especially when that is going to be just what the defense is going after.

 

3) There was just over a minute left, and the point was to run down the clock first, and get the first down second.

Basically agree, but I just don't think running the end around was as bad, for example, as a pass here. You are still killing the clock. And that is what we did. We didn't get the first, but also kept the clock running, and punted w/ about 28 seconds remaining, giving them 17 seconds for their final drive, w/o timeouts.

 

I don't mind trying something different, but I think it's idiotic to do it at that time.

And I simply disagree. I understand your logic, but at the same time, for an offense that has been simply so predictable, I can not attack the OC for trying something different.

 

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.

[jason]

lol Calm down tough guy.

 

Or its the kind of play that worked earlier and the kind that Jackson from Philly ran for two first downs.

 

pee-wee indeed

 

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.

[azbearsfan]

1) Chicago's offense is not Philly's

 

Yeah that makes a ton of difference.

 

2) Chicago's OLine is not Philly's

 

Oh so obviously we should run it up the middle with a crappy oline. Good one.

 

3) Jackson is a WR, Forte is a RB, so it's a play with different players, different circumstances, and different odds of success.

 

I'd love to see your chart on the "odds of success" of certain plays.

 

4) Orton is not McNabb

 

Good point here. It makes a ton of difference who is handing the ball off.

 

5) The game situation was completely different. The Bears wanted to run the clock whereas the Eagles wanted to go for the score.

 

Another great point. Since reverses dont count as runs, the clock automatically stops.

 

 

 

Thank you for the lesson.

 

Whaaaahahahahahahahahaha