I will say this once again

[Wesson44]

IMHO we are losing games not because of the offense or because of the defense but because our OC Turner has no imagination for winning. Why do you keep giving the ball to McKie with 3rd and 1 or 4th and one. This is two games that he has done that. With the way teams are stacking the box you have to be a thinker, and I think(I KNOW) that the fake handoff bootleg pass will work to the TE every time. Not to mention that one of the TE we have sitting on the bench can catch and is 6'7' much taller than the 5'11' DB we face every week.

 

Next we are making dumb calls....with 11 seconds you squib kick the ball? Kick it deep and either let them return it to the 30 with about 6 second left or down it and get it at the 20. Not letting them have the ball at the 43....one pass out of bounds and kick to win the game.

 

But what I'm most upset about is this. I was a corner/saftey in high school & college and learned from a good coach about tecnique down and distance. Our corner use this stupid bail scheme...meaning as soon as the WR comes off the ball the break out and turn to run with him deep. So when the WR stops his pattern and cuts left or right we(our corners) are at least five to seven yards away from him. You need to back prddle until the WR makes a break and then you break with him and you are still next to him. It's easy to complete passes when you are giving them a free WR to throw to. Ryan did this all night. If you press the WR it throws off the timing of all pass plays and with 6 seconds left we should have done that to make Ryan hold the ball longer and allowed our rushers to get to him.

[BearFan2000]

IMHO we are losing games not because of the offense or because of the defense but because our OC Turner has no imagination for winning. Why do you keep giving the ball to McKie with 3rd and 1 or 4th and one. This is two games that he has done that. With the way teams are stacking the box you have to be a thinker, and I think(I KNOW) that the fake handoff bootleg pass will work to the TE every time. Not to mention that one of the TE we have sitting on the bench can catch and is 6'7' much taller than the 5'11' DB we face every week.

 

Next we are making dumb calls....with 11 seconds you squib kick the ball? Kick it deep and either let them return it to the 30 with about 6 second left or down it and get it at the 20. Not letting them have the ball at the 43....one pass out of bounds and kick to win the game.

 

But what I'm most upset about is this. I was a corner/saftey in high school & college and learned from a good coach about tecnique down and distance. Our corner use this stupid bail scheme...meaning as soon as the WR comes off the ball the break out and turn to run with him deep. So when the WR stops his pattern and cuts left or right we(our corners) are at least five to seven yards away from him. You need to back prddle until the WR makes a break and then you break with him and you are still next to him. It's easy to complete passes when you are giving them a free WR to throw to. Ryan did this all night. If you press the WR it throws off the timing of all pass plays and with 6 seconds left we should have done that to make Ryan hold the ball longer and allowed our rushers to get to him.

 

 

Agree with the first point. With the fake handoff and play action two good things can happen. If you only have 1 yard to gain and a stacked box if they do manage to cover the WR/TEs your QB should be able to pick up the yard needed. But the Bears.... we hand the ball off to our slowest ball carrier who then runs into the pile of bodies for a loss or no gain. Our O-Line is simply not good enough to call that play.

 

I haven't watched the game yet but I don't need to know that is very stupid thinkinging to squib kick it. 11 seconds left and you are leading by less than a FG you kick the thing deep force them to chew up time returning it and then make them earn FG range. But by kicking a short squib you surrender field position at a time when field position is most critical. Beyond that they have a very solid FG kicker and you need to do everything you can to keep it out of his range.

 

I couldn't agree more about your last point as well. We've seen this for a long time now. Our secondary is not agressive and we allow pretty much anyone to come in and pick us appart. Are we that afraid of the big play that we completely sell out to defend that by doing a bail out technique. What makes it worse is we rarely bump and run there's too often a 5-10 yard cussion from the line of scrimmage. So the DB is already surrendering a short completion allowing them to move the ball at will. To make that worse our safetys (even the great Mike Brown) are usually late getting over. So when the DB passes off the reciever the gap is too big and we give up larger chunks. With our non-existant pass rush the QB has time to pick and choose what he wants to do. It's just maddening to watch. We need to abandon the cover 2, it has been exposed and has ran it's course. We need to be more agressive on defense.

[jason]

IMHO we are losing games not because of the offense or because of the defense but because our OC Turner has no imagination for winning. Why do you keep giving the ball to McKie with 3rd and 1 or 4th and one. This is two games that he has done that. With the way teams are stacking the box you have to be a thinker, and I think(I KNOW) that the fake handoff bootleg pass will work to the TE every time. Not to mention that one of the TE we have sitting on the bench can catch and is 6'7' much taller than the 5'11' DB we face every week.

 

Next we are making dumb calls....with 11 seconds you squib kick the ball? Kick it deep and either let them return it to the 30 with about 6 second left or down it and get it at the 20. Not letting them have the ball at the 43....one pass out of bounds and kick to win the game.

 

But what I'm most upset about is this. I was a corner/saftey in high school & college and learned from a good coach about tecnique down and distance. Our corner use this stupid bail scheme...meaning as soon as the WR comes off the ball the break out and turn to run with him deep. So when the WR stops his pattern and cuts left or right we(our corners) are at least five to seven yards away from him. You need to back prddle until the WR makes a break and then you break with him and you are still next to him. It's easy to complete passes when you are giving them a free WR to throw to. Ryan did this all night. If you press the WR it throws off the timing of all pass plays and with 6 seconds left we should have done that to make Ryan hold the ball longer and allowed our rushers to get to him.

 

1) Agreed - same thing I've said. It's common football knowledge.

2) Meh. The more I think about this, the more I think your position is right. But at the time, I didn't think it was a bad idea.

3) Agreed - same thing I've said. It's common football knowledge.

 

Cue azbear to swing on Turner's nuts and tell you that you don't know what you are talking about because you aren't an NFL coach.

[azbearsfan]

1) Agreed - same thing I've said. It's common football knowledge.

2) Meh. The more I think about this, the more I think your position is right. But at the time, I didn't think it was a bad idea.

3) Agreed - same thing I've said. It's common football knowledge.

 

Cue azbear to swing on Turner's nuts and tell you that you don't know what you are talking about because you aren't an NFL coach.

 

haha,

Good one coach. What no letter this week?

 

1) Although Coach /GM Jason will tell you otherwise, I actually do not the FB play either and have said as much on the boards. However, I dont think that one play tells the story on how Turner is doing. I think he is doing just fine. You can't bash him for the FB deal and then not give him credit when we take it down the field and score at the end or get KO 300 plus yard games, etc.

 

2) This is really a catch 22. Norwood had been getting good returns on us all day. I guarantee if Norwood returns it 80 yards you and Coach Jason are up in arms yelling "Why did Lovie keep it deep"

 

3) I actually have said this too. My problem with the coaches has never been scheme, it has always been the technique (ask NFO, we have gone back and forth in this). I agree with you. The angles they use in coverage are not good all the time and it shows. I also think the thinking here is that Peanut is the best at stripping the ball so let them catch and try to get the TO. They said as much on TV.

[Bears4Ever_34]

The cover 2 is a simple coverage to exploit. Why do you think Atlanta ran slant after slant on 3rd downs? This was exploited badly by Matt Leinart 2 years ago in that wild game at Arizona where he just continued to complete pass after pass via slant. Lovie obviously doesn't get it. I hate the cover 2, I wish we would blitz more and more and disguise it like Pittsburgh so the QB thinks were in pass coverage but then it turns into a blitz.. We didn't give Ryan enough looks on defense to trick him into anything.. I can't wait until the day Lovie is fired, kinda like when I couldn't wait for Skiles to be fired by the Bulls..

[Lucky Luciano]

But what I'm most upset about is this. I was a corner/saftey in high school & college and learned from a good coach about tecnique down and distance. Our corner use this stupid bail scheme...meaning as soon as the WR comes off the ball the break out and turn to run with him deep. So when the WR stops his pattern and cuts left or right we(our corners) are at least five to seven yards away from him. You need to back prddle until the WR makes a break and then you break with him and you are still next to him. It's easy to complete passes when you are giving them a free WR to throw to. Ryan did this all night. If you press the WR it throws off the timing of all pass plays and with 6 seconds left we should have done that to make Ryan hold the ball longer and allowed our rushers to get to him.

 

i have said this before and will say this again.... the reason these slants and passes into the flats for 8-10+ yards nearly ALWAYS works is because we play our corners about 5 yds of the LOS. as soon as the ball is snapped they start backpeddling. this leaves the receivers with about 8 or more yards of free space. i would also like to mention that this leaves every receiver untouched in his route because we CAN'T touch him after 5 yds!! so, as soon as the ball is thrown our corners make their play (which is too late) and the end results are an easy completion that moves the sticks.

 

for this god forsaken cover 2 crap to even WORK you need the corners to play bump and run at the LOS to slow up their routes and move the receivers into the center of the field.

 

the reason we don't do this is because in the past both our starting corners CAN'T play bump and run without getting blown up by the quick and fast receivers. yet our coaches continue to use this approach game after game!!

 

i would also like to make one comment... if our defense has given up 10+ yrds per pass throughout the game, why would you give them great field position with a squib kick and the chance to do it all over again? ESPECIALLY when both your starting corners with experience are out of the game with injuries!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

EDIT: add to this fact that even our nickle players, mcbride AND d. manning were out with injuries along with peanut and vasher.

[jason]

haha,

Good one coach. What no letter this week?

 

1) Although Coach /GM Jason will tell you otherwise, I actually do not the FB play either and have said as much on the boards. However, I dont think that one play tells the story on how Turner is doing. I think he is doing just fine. You can't bash him for the FB deal and then not give him credit when we take it down the field and score at the end or get KO 300 plus yard games, etc.

 

2) This is really a catch 22. Norwood had been getting good returns on us all day. I guarantee if Norwood returns it 80 yards you and Coach Jason are up in arms yelling "Why did Lovie keep it deep"

 

3) I actually have said this too. My problem with the coaches has never been scheme, it has always been the technique (ask NFO, we have gone back and forth in this). I agree with you. The angles they use in coverage are not good all the time and it shows. I also think the thinking here is that Peanut is the best at stripping the ball so let them catch and try to get the TO. They said as much on TV.

 

1) I've given credit and ripped. This is the first time I have seen you admit to the fact that the FB dive play is a stupid play in that scenario. I have, however, seen you say it was a good play somewhere else on this board. Keep in mind that the praise being delivered is still being given to an offense that had 13 whole points with less than a minute to go - so it's not like they're tearing it up. And as for "taking it down the field" in the last minute, that was almost a no-brainer. It's hard to give credit to someone calling plays when they have no real choice. You give credit to the players in that situation. To give Turner credit for the last minute drive, a drive in which the play-calls were a given, is like giving credit to someone when they choose to drink water instead of bleach - when the choice is blatantly clear, it's really hard to screw up. On that same note, if the players screw up in that situation, it's all on them.

 

2) Like I said multiple times, I didn't have a problem with the squib kick at the time. I also don't think I would have been troubled by a long kick. If the guy returns it, he returns it. There is only one player in the NFL that warrants kicking away, and that player is Devin Hester...and he doesn't deserve it this year.

 

3) So, what you are saying is, it's possible, however slightly you may think the percentages are, that we fans may be able to see things and make calls, at times, the coaches can't? Are you telling me that it's possible the high-and-mighty coaches in the NFL are not absolutely infallible? Or is it just the defensive coach that can be questioned? Careful, your slip is showing.

[azbearsfan]

1) I've given credit and ripped. This is the first time I have seen you admit to the fact that the FB dive play is a stupid play in that scenario. I have, however, seen you say it was a good play somewhere else on this board. Keep in mind that the praise being delivered is still being given to an offense that had 13 whole points with less than a minute to go - so it's not like they're tearing it up. And as for "taking it down the field" in the last minute, that was almost a no-brainer. It's hard to give credit to someone calling plays when they have no real choice. You give credit to the players in that situation. To give Turner credit for the last minute drive, a drive in which the play-calls were a given, is like giving credit to someone when they choose to drink water instead of bleach - when the choice is blatantly clear, it's really hard to screw up. On that same note, if the players screw up in that situation, it's all on them.

 

2) Like I said multiple times, I didn't have a problem with the squib kick at the time. I also don't think I would have been troubled by a long kick. If the guy returns it, he returns it. There is only one player in the NFL that warrants kicking away, and that player is Devin Hester...and he doesn't deserve it this year.

 

3) So, what you are saying is, it's possible, however slightly you may think the percentages are, that we fans may be able to see things and make calls, at times, the coaches can't? Are you telling me that it's possible the high-and-mighty coaches in the NFL are not absolutely infallible? Or is it just the defensive coach that can be questioned? Careful, your slip is showing.

 

1) Wrong. I have never said I thought it was a good play. In fact, the first game we ran it, I said it was the one call I disagreed with. But overall this year I think Turner has done well. I know you disagree, but there will be plays that we all dont agree with during a game. Doesn't mean they are bad calls as we dont know what they are setting up. I dont pretend to know the situations that are happening on the field to make calls. Maybe they saw something upstairs that they thought they could get it. But its obviously a play he likes, so to have the same "QUIT CALLING THE FB PLAY" threads is getting old. Plus, you have said numerous times that a Forte run up the middle was better than the FB play and a reverse. I see that in fact it wasn't in this case, but you dont bring this up.

 

2) Yes but if Norwood, who had gotten good returns all day on us, had gotten a good return, you are saying that you wouldn't be up at arms. I highly doubt that.

 

3) All I have ever said is that the scheme is not bad and its the techniques in the scheme. Again, NFO and I have gone around and around in this discussion. And although you love embellishing things to suit your rants, I really only have a problem with Internet All Stars saying they could do it better than the guys in the NFL. Its hilarious actually. You have no idea what it takes to be a coach in the NFL or a GM for that matter. And I love to talk crap to you specifically because you get all upset over a message board and I find that VERY funny.

[Wanne]

1) Wrong. I have never said I thought it was a good play. In fact, the first game we ran it, I said it was the one call I disagreed with. But overall this year I think Turner has done well. I know you disagree, but there will be plays that we all dont agree with during a game. Doesn't mean they are bad calls as we dont know what they are setting up. I dont pretend to know the situations that are happening on the field to make calls. Maybe they saw something upstairs that they thought they could get it. But its obviously a play he likes, so to have the same "QUIT CALLING THE FB PLAY" threads is getting old. Plus, you have said numerous times that a Forte run up the middle was better than the FB play and a reverse. I see that in fact it wasn't in this case, but you dont bring this up.

 

2) Yes but if Norwood, who had gotten good returns all day on us, had gotten a good return, you are saying that you wouldn't be up at arms. I highly doubt that.

 

3) All I have ever said is that the scheme is not bad and its the techniques in the scheme. Again, NFO and I have gone around and around in this discussion. And although you love embellishing things to suit your rants, I really only have a problem with Internet All Stars saying they could do it better than the guys in the NFL. Its hilarious actually. You have no idea what it takes to be a coach in the NFL or a GM for that matter. And I love to talk crap to you specifically because you get all upset over a message board and I find that VERY funny.

 

 

1) I've had no problem with Turner except for only a handful of calls this year...and I'm one of the BIGGEST Turner bashers around.

 

2) I guess it's hindsight...but I'd rather have taken my chances kicking it deep. Would have taken away one more play if covered well due to more clock being gone. But again...hindsight.

 

3) I'm really having a problem with the overall scheme and Lovie's apparent stubborness to deviate much from it. I think that was the biggest problem between him and Rivera. RR wanted to add quite a few wrinkles that Lovie didn't like/agree with and it caused quite a bit of friction between them. Lovie has his "yes man" in there now. But overall I'm sick of the basic "Cover 2".

[AZ54]

This defense is all predicated on getting a good pass rush from the front four. If you don't have that it will ALWAYS look bad. Yesterday we had almost no pressure all day.

 

On the other side of the ball it's hard to run when nobody can get any push on the Dline.

 

Ignore the lucky stuff at the end of the game this game was won and lost in the trenches and we didn't deserve to win.

[chitownman]

The only time that the FB/RB dive played ever worked is when "Sweetness" was in the backfield doing it. Walter had just such a natural ability to get the job done by going over the top. After running it up the gut on 3rd down, Turner should have known on 4th & 1 that the box would have been stacked and as others have said, play action fake with either the QB keeping it and running around and in or a quick flip to a receiver or TE would have secured six for us. There are some good calls by Ron Turner however, there are more and more bad calls by Turner as well. Then there is the problem of Babich and Lovie being completely devoted to the Cover 2. As it was stated earlier in this thread, we got picked apart all day with slants by a rookie that we made look like an All-Pro. The Cover 2 has too many weaknesses that are being more and more exploited and with Rivera, there seemed to be a little bit of the "46" coming back into play. It was stated in the Trib a couple of weeks ago that with Babich as the DC, the Bears have lost I believe it is now 7 of the last 9 that the Bears have lead in the 4th quarter and with Rivera as the DC, the Bears only lost once in 25 times that the Bears had the lead i the 4th quarter. Makes a person think.

[azbearsfan]

The only time that the FB/RB dive played ever worked is when "Sweetness" was in the backfield doing it. Walter had just such a natural ability to get the job done by going over the top. After running it up the gut on 3rd down, Turner should have known on 4th & 1 that the box would have been stacked and as others have said, play action fake with either the QB keeping it and running around and in or a quick flip to a receiver or TE would have secured six for us. There are some good calls by Ron Turner however, there are more and more bad calls by Turner as well. Then there is the problem of Babich and Lovie being completely devoted to the Cover 2. As it was stated earlier in this thread, we got picked apart all day with slants by a rookie that we made look like an All-Pro. The Cover 2 has too many weaknesses that are being more and more exploited and with Rivera, there seemed to be a little bit of the "46" coming back into play. It was stated in the Trib a couple of weeks ago that with Babich as the DC, the Bears have lost I believe it is now 7 of the last 9 that the Bears have lead in the 4th quarter and with Rivera as the DC, the Bears only lost once in 25 times that the Bears had the lead i the 4th quarter. Makes a person think.

 

 

Part of the problem with the slants was that the LB's and nickel were not giving very good underneath help. If Briggs and Manning were getting wider to their zones instead of staying inside then we make plays on that.

 

Since we are in the "Cover 2" less than 40% of the time, its tough to just blame that.

[madlithuanian]

Point well made.

 

I would just love to give a win to Orton and Forte...those guys earned it.

 

This defense is all predicated on getting a good pass rush from the front four. If you don't have that it will ALWAYS look bad. Yesterday we had almost no pressure all day.

 

On the other side of the ball it's hard to run when nobody can get any push on the Dline.

 

Ignore the lucky stuff at the end of the game this game was won and lost in the trenches and we didn't deserve to win.

[madlithuanian]

That speaks volumes...

 

It was stated in the Trib a couple of weeks ago that with Babich as the DC, the Bears have lost I believe it is now 7 of the last 9 that the Bears have lead in the 4th quarter and with Rivera as the DC, the Bears only lost once in 25 times that the Bears had the lead i the 4th quarter. Makes a person think.

[madlithuanian]

I think, at least most of us here, could care less what we call it. It ain't working right. Either these pro bowl calibur players arent playing it correctly, or the coordinator isn't calling the right plays. Bottom line, we are losing late game leads because this team cannot generate decent pressure on a fairly consistent basis.

 

I think it's the coaching...

 

Part of the problem with the slants was that the LB's and nickel were not giving very good underneath help. If Briggs and Manning were getting wider to their zones instead of staying inside then we make plays on that.

 

Since we are in the "Cover 2" less than 40% of the time, its tough to just blame that.

[azbearsfan]

I think, at least most of us here, could care less what we call it. It ain't working right. Either these pro bowl calibur players arent playing it correctly, or the coordinator isn't calling the right plays. Bottom line, we are losing late game leads because this team cannot generate decent pressure on a fairly consistent basis.

 

I think it's the coaching...

 

 

lol Or the players.....

 

The only Pro Bowl player I see on defense this year is Briggs.

[madlithuanian]

I'd tend to agree.

 

However, I don't even reomtely see a pro bowl coach on this staff...and that includes Toub right now.

 

lol Or the players.....

 

The only Pro Bowl player I see on defense this year is Briggs.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Watch the New York Giants game tonight and you'll see how great their defensive line is. It all starts up front and they get pressure on the quarterback almost at will.

[madlithuanian]

Exactly. And that's without Strahan and Osymenora (sp?)

 

 

 

Watch the New York Giants game tonight and you'll see how great their defensive line is. It all starts up front and they get pressure on the quarterback almost at will.

[Lucky Luciano]

Part of the problem with the slants was that the LB's and nickel were not giving very good underneath help. If Briggs and Manning were getting wider to their zones instead of staying inside then we make plays on that.

 

this is not totally correct. the outside backers, and briggs if you like, job is to key on the fullback, the running back and tight ends (and throw in mobile qb's into this mix if they come up) 'generally'.

 

what is happening in our scheme is the wide outs are blowing by any zone covered by the backers because the corners are playing so far off the LOS that by the time they engage it's 5-10 yrds past the LOS. if as you say the backers were to move to the sideline to cover these wideout slants and curls they would be totally out of position and the corners job would be to stick his thumb up his arse and watch every play develop in front of him.

 

now.... your statement that we play 40% or less cover 2 is probably true though. which brings us to the brick wall we have run into since lovie has been in chicago. if we HAD picked up a primo 'cover' corner around 3 years ago like we sure as hell should have we wouldn't be having these discussions nearly so often. instead we let woodson go to our rival in green bay while we have 2 highly paid starting corners who CAN'T play bump and run man coverage because they plain suck at it.

[jason]

1) Wrong. I have never said I thought it was a good play. In fact, the first game we ran it, I said it was the one call I disagreed with. But overall this year I think Turner has done well. I know you disagree, but there will be plays that we all dont agree with during a game. Doesn't mean they are bad calls as we dont know what they are setting up. I dont pretend to know the situations that are happening on the field to make calls. Maybe they saw something upstairs that they thought they could get it. But its obviously a play he likes, so to have the same "QUIT CALLING THE FB PLAY" threads is getting old. Plus, you have said numerous times that a Forte run up the middle was better than the FB play and a reverse. I see that in fact it wasn't in this case, but you dont bring this up.

 

2) Yes but if Norwood, who had gotten good returns all day on us, had gotten a good return, you are saying that you wouldn't be up at arms. I highly doubt that.

 

3) All I have ever said is that the scheme is not bad and its the techniques in the scheme. Again, NFO and I have gone around and around in this discussion. And although you love embellishing things to suit your rants, I really only have a problem with Internet All Stars saying they could do it better than the guys in the NFL. Its hilarious actually. You have no idea what it takes to be a coach in the NFL or a GM for that matter. And I love to talk crap to you specifically because you get all upset over a message board and I find that VERY funny.

 

1a) I think Turner has done slightly above average. He has not done well.

1b) I'm sorry, but the FB dive to McKie is a bad play 99.9% of the time. If he busts it loose, he gets max 3 yards. If he fails, he gets stuffed for -3 yards. There just isn't room for error, and most of the time he doesn't have enough speed or running ability to get the positive yards. It's a horrible play in nearly every situation.

1c) I know the "quit calling the FB dive play"-threads are getting old...but not nearly as friggin old as watching the play unfold, destined to fail, and Turner keeps calling them. Besides, that's the point of the message board - to discuss the finer points of Bears football.

1d) You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about, and you don't read the whole posts. The 4th and 1 play is not nearly the same as the 3rd and 1 play. One third down, there is a much better chance of play action pass, so the defense has to respect that. Hence, greater success from the RB (not the FB). On fourth down, everyone in the building knows it's going to be a run up the pipe. If you don't see the fundamental difference between play-calling on third and fourth down in the NFL, then I am giving you too much credit. When it's third and less than 3, nearly every play call should involve giving the ball to Forte (or Jones), or running a play-action-fake off of that same play.

 

2) Honestly, I had no care one way or the other. At the time it seemed like a good play, to squib it, but I didn't like the distance on the squib. It looked like Gould slowed up. Since then, however, I've heard some very good breakdowns about why it's a near guarantee that kicking it deep would have been a better call...and it's hard to disagree.

 

3) Actually, dude, I don't get angry about it. I just find that you're more ignorant about this discussion than the people you think are ignorant. Hell, you all but agreed with me in a recent post when you questioned the defensive strategies employed by the Bears. The way I see it, you have no right to question any play call by any coach, any draft selection, or any decision in management...because they are right by your standards. I happen to think that many guys in the pros out-think themselves. It's the same in any profession. People that have been doing things so long lose focus on the basics, and they try to be too smart instead of just doing what works, or taking advantage of what the defense gives you. For instance, the way our DBs CONSTANTLY get burned by the slant. How the hell does Babich not see this and adjust? I know you agree with this. And since you do, surely you can see the logic in the fact that while all of us agree we couldn't do a better job overall than the guys doing it, we can still see flaws in their game plan, or draft selections. Actually, it reminds me of a story...

 

A truck slammed into a bridge and there was a huge accident. The truck got wedged under the bridge so tight that no matter the pull or push applied, it just wouldn't move. It was possible that someone was stuck in there still, and they had to move it. Police and firemen brought in machines, lubrication, and every sort of pulley one could think of. Nothing budged. By this time the traffic had backed up. A young father and his 6-year old walked up to see what was going on, and to see if there was any way they could help. The father asked a firefighter about the problem, about how horrible the situation was, and the father shocked to hear all the details. Just then the little kid spoke up, "Why not let the air out of the tires?"

[jason]

Just wanted to put it in other words:

 

Hell, it's the entire premise behind the show "Are you Smarter Than a 5th Grader". We are Joe Fan. We may know a lot, some more than others, but we don't know as much as the coaches. That's almost given most of the time. What some of us do know, however, is football. We understand basic X's and O's, basic strategy. We understand it because we have played, coached, or officiated (I happen to have done all three). And while I don't know all the cool lingo, all the 600 page play books, I know football.

 

The width of our knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep; the coaches is an inch-wide and a mile deep (the same as the TV show - which is why nobody knows what a cumulus cloud is). I know what I have done and what I have seen, and when I watch the Bears, I apply that knowledge. I imagine it's the same as just about anyone here.

 

So, just because we aren't in the league doesn't mean it's not possible that we may have a better idea or could do better than any one of those guys for a few plays or a few situations; hell, maybe quite a bit more than that with some coaches. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet. Give us a full game? We'd probably screw it up. But give us a few plays (maybe a drive or two), and there is a much better chance of success. I just think that you write off the fan too much, and I think we know a lot more about football than you give us all credit for. I know a few things for sure: I would have our DBs up closer to the WRs, and I wouldn't run the FB dive. In other words, I'd learn from my mistakes - something this coaching staff hasn't done.

 

After all, if these guys are so good at their jobs, they wouldn't be getting fired left and right, and they wouldn't be constantly questioned by former players, coaches, and GMs for doing stupid things.

[nfoligno]

1a) I think Turner has done slightly above average. He has not done well.

 

I think Turner has done well. For me, the key is what he has to work w/. Let's be honest for a moment about our talent level on offense. Going into the season, we had a huge question mark at QB, a rookie RB, and little to nothing on the OL and at WR. About the only position we had known talent was at TE. The expectations for our offense were VERY low. And yet the offense has done, overall, a pretty solid job. They have scored points and most often held a TOP advantage. While I disagree w/ numerous playcalls of Turner, when stepping back and looking at the picture as a whole, I think he has done a good job, at least when factoring what he has to work with.

 

Regarding the FB dive - IMHO, the FB dive as a general concept is not a problem, but (a) I don't think we have a good running FB, thus it is not a very good option for us, and ( I think the other problem is our FB dive seems to always employ the same package, and thus is too predictable. When we go w/ the FB dive, we are in our "Moose" package. In other words, we have our power package, w/ both TEs tight off the OT. I can't recall who the opponent was, but another team said they knew what we were running based on our package. If we had a great OL, that would be fine. Every week you see a team lineup in a power package, telegraphing what they are going to do, but they simply ask their OL to win the battle. We simply don't have an OL that gets enough push, and thus this is a bad playcall for us. IMHO, we would be much better off spreading it out more, giving the perception of playaction, and then running it. We just do not have the OL to simply beat power v power.

 

Regarding Az's beliefs, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding. It isn't so much the he doesn't believe we should question any playcall or decision of the front office or coaches. Az simply believes the problems lie in execution v scheme. Execution can be blamed on coaches as well as players, but his believe is the scheme as a whole is fine. He and I disagree on this point, but I do understand his position.

[madlithuanian]

Nice post!

 

Just wanted to put it in other words:

 

Hell, it's the entire premise behind the show "Are you Smarter Than a 5th Grader". We are Joe Fan. We may know a lot, some more than others, but we don't know as much as the coaches. That's almost given most of the time. What some of us do know, however, is football. We understand basic X's and O's, basic strategy. We understand it because we have played, coached, or officiated (I happen to have done all three). And while I don't know all the cool lingo, all the 600 page play books, I know football.

 

The width of our knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep; the coaches is an inch-wide and a mile deep (the same as the TV show - which is why nobody knows what a cumulus cloud is). I know what I have done and what I have seen, and when I watch the Bears, I apply that knowledge. I imagine it's the same as just about anyone here.

 

So, just because we aren't in the league doesn't mean it's not possible that we may have a better idea or could do better than any one of those guys for a few plays or a few situations; hell, maybe quite a bit more than that with some coaches. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet. Give us a full game? We'd probably screw it up. But give us a few plays (maybe a drive or two), and there is a much better chance of success. I just think that you write off the fan too much, and I think we know a lot more about football than you give us all credit for. I know a few things for sure: I would have our DBs up closer to the WRs, and I wouldn't run the FB dive. In other words, I'd learn from my mistakes - something this coaching staff hasn't done.

 

After all, if these guys are so good at their jobs, they wouldn't be getting fired left and right, and they wouldn't be constantly questioned by former players, coaches, and GMs for doing stupid things.

[BearFan2000]

1) Agreed - same thing I've said. It's common football knowledge.

2) Meh. The more I think about this, the more I think your position is right. But at the time, I didn't think it was a bad idea.

3) Agreed - same thing I've said. It's common football knowledge.

 

Cue azbear to swing on Turner's nuts and tell you that you don't know what you are talking about because you aren't an NFL coach.

 

 

Neither is Turner but he plays one on TV