Knox injured???

[BearFan2000]

they just said the Knox has a leg injury? What happened?

[GrizzlyBear]

Yep leg, good thing its a bye week.

[BearFan2000]

anything more specific than leg?

 

But you are absolutely right the Bye week is coming at a good time. Get Forte healed up fully, get Hester healed get Knox healed get Pisa back.

[ChileBear]

Yep leg, good thing its a bye week.

Bye week--perfect timing!

[Bears4Ever_34]

Yeah I don't think the Bye week could come at a better time! We need both Hester and Knox to get some revenge on the Falcons! I hope we sack Matt Ryan about a half dozen times and get a couple of picks and turnovers as well. With Cutler at the helm I'm feeling pretty confident about a W.

[bradjock]

they just said the Knox has a leg injury? What happened?

 

The radio said the trainers had given Knox is helmet back and he was okay to go back into the game.

 

We scored with a little over 6 minutes to go and right after that they said Knox was heading back to the locker room.

 

I'm just speculating but I'm guessing if it was a close game he could have played. When it reached "blow-out" level, it made sense to shut him down.

[BearFan2000]

The radio said the trainers had given Knox is helmet back and he was okay to go back into the game.

 

We scored with a little over 6 minutes to go and right after that they said Knox was heading back to the locker room.

 

I'm just speculating but I'm guessing if it was a close game he could have played. When it reached "blow-out" level, it made sense to shut him down.

 

 

good point, in a game like this there was no point to rush players back.

[defiantgiant]

anything more specific than leg?

 

But you are absolutely right the Bye week is coming at a good time. Get Forte healed up fully, get Hester healed get Knox healed get Pisa back.

 

Right shin, according to the Tribune. Doesn't sound like it's serious. Hester's injury was his neck, rather than his shoulder...sounds like it was just a stinger. I think both guys will probably be fine after the bye.

 

I'm a little worried about Bowman's injury, though. He's as injury prone as they come, and he's gone out for at least a series or two in every game so far this season. He looks like the Mike Brown problem all over again: incredible when he's on the field, but he's always getting hurt. At a bare minimum, we need somebody better than Vasher as Bowman's backup. Has there been any word on Corey Graham? He wasn't terrible last season, I don't know why he can't be the #3 corner.

[AZ54]

What is Bowman's injury? I thought he was just shaken up on the field.

[defiantgiant]

What is Bowman's injury? I thought he was just shaken up on the field.

 

He left in the fourth and Vasher came in. I don't have any more information - he might have just been shaken up. Same thing happened in the Seahawks game, though, and I think I remember him going out in the Steelers game, too. Hopefully it's nothing lasting, but it's worrisome that he doesn't seem to be able to play a full game.

[Guest TerraTor]

What is Bowman's injury? I thought he was just shaken up on the field.

 

 

He should be shaken up after his coverage skills were on display

[Pixote]

From what I was hearing on the Score this morning the primary problem in our coverage was in the middle of the field which Roach was responsible for. Roach does not have the cover skills needed to be a MLB in a Cover 2 defense.

[madlithuanian]

I kept seeing the DB's giving WR's mad room. On a number of 3rd and 5's or 4's, the DB would give 8 yeards! This was in the first half predominantly.

 

I just don't get that... Both those long drives on us were a result of much of that...

 

From what I was hearing on the Score this morning the primary problem in our coverage was in the middle of the field which Roach was responsible for. Roach does not have the cover skills needed to be a MLB in a Cover 2 defense.

 

[AZ54]

He should be shaken up after his coverage skills were on display

 

That's pretty funny!

[nfoligno]

Um, welcome to the party. I have screamed about this for years. Its nothing new. Our DBs give between 8-10 yards cusion to WRs. Even on 3rd and 5, they are beyond the 1st down marker.

 

I believe this is the coverage theory in Lovie's two.

 

CBs are to keep WRs in front of them. This is why they line up well off the LOS. The idea here is the CB is less likely to get beat deep when playing off. Further, if the pass is short, the CB is expected to make a quick break and sure tackle. If done right, WRs should be limited to relatively short gains. Also, CBs are expected to primarily take away the outside. The idea is for the CB to shut down the sideline, and if the WR goes over the middle, there is Safety and or LB help. Vasher said as much last year, but when I was watching the Carolina game last week (Dallas), and Carolina was playing a cover two, the announced (I think Gruden) said this as well. CBs are expected to take away the sideline and expect help on inside routes.

 

Here are the problems that I see though, not w/ the system itself, but with what actually happens when we play.

 

One. CBs turn their hips too quickly. I don't know if our CBs simply lack confidence to stick w/ a WR deep, but they turn their hips dang near as soon as the WR begins to run his route. As they already started out so deep, that means WRs can make very easy 5+ yard catches, but further, they have space after the catch. If the CB didn't so quickly turn his hips, he would be hitting the WR as he made the catch, but because he turns his hips, the WR makes the catch and has space to create after.

 

Two. As said before, so much of this system predicates on sure tackles, which we just do not often enough make. Whether it is because a player goes for the strip rather than the tackle, takes a bad angle or whatever, what should be a relatively short gain becomes a solid gain.

 

Three. We do not have good coverage safeties. Further, as we so often have to blitz both LBs and S', they are not in position to help WRs over the middle. Even when a WR does his job, and forces the WR inside, the help is not there. This is really made worse when we fake blitz our LBs and expect them to get back into position after starting out basically on top of the LOS.

 

Whether this is a good scheme or not is very questionable IMHO, but I would also argue that we simply do not run it well. Our DBs do not tackle as well as needed, and frankly, we don't have the safeties.

 

I kept seeing the DB's giving WR's mad room. On a number of 3rd and 5's or 4's, the DB would give 8 yeards! This was in the first half predominantly.

 

I just don't get that... Both those long drives on us were a result of much of that...

 

[bowlingtwig]

I kept seeing the DB's giving WR's mad room. On a number of 3rd and 5's or 4's, the DB would give 8 yeards! This was in the first half predominantly.

 

I just don't get that... Both those long drives on us were a result of much of that...

I agree. I watched both the Notre Dame game on Saturday and then our game on Sunday and it was funny how I was screaming the same thing all weekend. Talk about a broken record, I was going nuts. What drove me nuts during both games also was absolutely piss poor officiating as well. During the ND game they threw a flag for roughing the snapper. I didn't know this was a penalty and BTW the play by play guys were amazed at that one as well, they never heard of it themselves and of course the snapper was barely even touched anyways. Then I watch our game and saw some of the calls. lol.

[madlithuanian]

I do recall your issues with this in the past.

 

It's frustrating. I'm not sure the solution, if any...but it just seems we're set for failure every time. Brady would completely annihilate this D w/ Welker.

 

Um, welcome to the party. I have screamed about this for years. Its nothing new. Our DBs give between 8-10 yards cusion to WRs. Even on 3rd and 5, they are beyond the 1st down marker.

 

I believe this is the coverage theory in Lovie's two.

 

CBs are to keep WRs in front of them. This is why they line up well off the LOS. The idea here is the CB is less likely to get beat deep when playing off. Further, if the pass is short, the CB is expected to make a quick break and sure tackle. If done right, WRs should be limited to relatively short gains. Also, CBs are expected to primarily take away the outside. The idea is for the CB to shut down the sideline, and if the WR goes over the middle, there is Safety and or LB help. Vasher said as much last year, but when I was watching the Carolina game last week (Dallas), and Carolina was playing a cover two, the announced (I think Gruden) said this as well. CBs are expected to take away the sideline and expect help on inside routes.

 

Here are the problems that I see though, not w/ the system itself, but with what actually happens when we play.

 

One. CBs turn their hips too quickly. I don't know if our CBs simply lack confidence to stick w/ a WR deep, but they turn their hips dang near as soon as the WR begins to run his route. As they already started out so deep, that means WRs can make very easy 5+ yard catches, but further, they have space after the catch. If the CB didn't so quickly turn his hips, he would be hitting the WR as he made the catch, but because he turns his hips, the WR makes the catch and has space to create after.

 

Two. As said before, so much of this system predicates on sure tackles, which we just do not often enough make. Whether it is because a player goes for the strip rather than the tackle, takes a bad angle or whatever, what should be a relatively short gain becomes a solid gain.

 

Three. We do not have good coverage safeties. Further, as we so often have to blitz both LBs and S', they are not in position to help WRs over the middle. Even when a WR does his job, and forces the WR inside, the help is not there. This is really made worse when we fake blitz our LBs and expect them to get back into position after starting out basically on top of the LOS.

 

Whether this is a good scheme or not is very questionable IMHO, but I would also argue that we simply do not run it well. Our DBs do not tackle as well as needed, and frankly, we don't have the safeties.

 

[nfoligno]

A friend of mine (bears fan) said that a good OC would simply call slants all day. If we are not going to contend this route, why not just keep attacking us w/ slants and quick outs.

 

I do recall your issues with this in the past.

 

It's frustrating. I'm not sure the solution, if any...but it just seems we're set for failure every time. Brady would completely annihilate this D w/ Welker.

 

[madlithuanian]

So true...

 

A friend of mine (bears fan) said that a good OC would simply call slants all day. If we are not going to contend this route, why not just keep attacking us w/ slants and quick outs.

 

[azbearsfan]

Um, welcome to the party. I have screamed about this for years. Its nothing new. Our DBs give between 8-10 yards cusion to WRs. Even on 3rd and 5, they are beyond the 1st down marker.

 

I believe this is the coverage theory in Lovie's two.

 

CBs are to keep WRs in front of them. This is why they line up well off the LOS. The idea here is the CB is less likely to get beat deep when playing off. Further, if the pass is short, the CB is expected to make a quick break and sure tackle. If done right, WRs should be limited to relatively short gains. Also, CBs are expected to primarily take away the outside. The idea is for the CB to shut down the sideline, and if the WR goes over the middle, there is Safety and or LB help. Vasher said as much last year, but when I was watching the Carolina game last week (Dallas), and Carolina was playing a cover two, the announced (I think Gruden) said this as well. CBs are expected to take away the sideline and expect help on inside routes.

 

Here are the problems that I see though, not w/ the system itself, but with what actually happens when we play.

 

One. CBs turn their hips too quickly. I don't know if our CBs simply lack confidence to stick w/ a WR deep, but they turn their hips dang near as soon as the WR begins to run his route. As they already started out so deep, that means WRs can make very easy 5+ yard catches, but further, they have space after the catch. If the CB didn't so quickly turn his hips, he would be hitting the WR as he made the catch, but because he turns his hips, the WR makes the catch and has space to create after.

 

Two. As said before, so much of this system predicates on sure tackles, which we just do not often enough make. Whether it is because a player goes for the strip rather than the tackle, takes a bad angle or whatever, what should be a relatively short gain becomes a solid gain.

 

Three. We do not have good coverage safeties. Further, as we so often have to blitz both LBs and S', they are not in position to help WRs over the middle. Even when a WR does his job, and forces the WR inside, the help is not there. This is really made worse when we fake blitz our LBs and expect them to get back into position after starting out basically on top of the LOS.

 

Whether this is a good scheme or not is very questionable IMHO, but I would also argue that we simply do not run it well. Our DBs do not tackle as well as needed, and frankly, we don't have the safeties.

 

 

You saw what happened when Vasher came up on that third and short against GB.......

[nfoligno]

Um, so you use for example one play, w/ a CB who has played his way out of the starting line up?

 

Sure, if we play bump and run, we are going to see players beaten. Guess what. I have seen our DBs get beaten when the play soft too.

 

For the record, I am not saying our CBs should be playing bump and run coverage. I would love to see it, but I have no clue if they are capable of doing that. At the same time, does it have to be one extreme or the other? Does it have to be the CB playing on the LOS or 10 yards back? Why can't a CB play about 4 yards off the LOS, keeping him in position to still have some cushion while also being in legal range to pump the WR if he trys to break into a slant and knock him off his route.

 

You saw what happened when Vasher came up on that third and short against GB.......

 

[madlithuanian]

Excactly...

 

Um, so you use for example one play, w/ a CB who has played his way out of the starting line up?

 

Sure, if we play bump and run, we are going to see players beaten. Guess what. I have seen our DBs get beaten when the play soft too.

 

For the record, I am not saying our CBs should be playing bump and run coverage. I would love to see it, but I have no clue if they are capable of doing that. At the same time, does it have to be one extreme or the other? Does it have to be the CB playing on the LOS or 10 yards back? Why can't a CB play about 4 yards off the LOS, keeping him in position to still have some cushion while also being in legal range to pump the WR if he trys to break into a slant and knock him off his route.

 

[lemonej]

Um, welcome to the party. I have screamed about this for years. Its nothing new. Our DBs give between 8-10 yards cusion to WRs. Even on 3rd and 5, they are beyond the 1st down marker.

 

I believe this is the coverage theory in Lovie's two.

 

CBs are to keep WRs in front of them. This is why they line up well off the LOS. The idea here is the CB is less likely to get beat deep when playing off. Further, if the pass is short, the CB is expected to make a quick break and sure tackle. If done right, WRs should be limited to relatively short gains. Also, CBs are expected to primarily take away the outside. The idea is for the CB to shut down the sideline, and if the WR goes over the middle, there is Safety and or LB help. Vasher said as much last year, but when I was watching the Carolina game last week (Dallas), and Carolina was playing a cover two, the announced (I think Gruden) said this as well. CBs are expected to take away the sideline and expect help on inside routes.

 

Here are the problems that I see though, not w/ the system itself, but with what actually happens when we play.

 

One. CBs turn their hips too quickly. I don't know if our CBs simply lack confidence to stick w/ a WR deep, but they turn their hips dang near as soon as the WR begins to run his route. As they already started out so deep, that means WRs can make very easy 5+ yard catches, but further, they have space after the catch. If the CB didn't so quickly turn his hips, he would be hitting the WR as he made the catch, but because he turns his hips, the WR makes the catch and has space to create after.

 

Two. As said before, so much of this system predicates on sure tackles, which we just do not often enough make. Whether it is because a player goes for the strip rather than the tackle, takes a bad angle or whatever, what should be a relatively short gain becomes a solid gain.

 

Three. We do not have good coverage safeties. Further, as we so often have to blitz both LBs and S', they are not in position to help WRs over the middle. Even when a WR does his job, and forces the WR inside, the help is not there. This is really made worse when we fake blitz our LBs and expect them to get back into position after starting out basically on top of the LOS.

 

Whether this is a good scheme or not is very questionable IMHO, but I would also argue that we simply do not run it well. Our DBs do not tackle as well as needed, and frankly, we don't have the safeties.

Hey NFO I see this the same way you do and can't understand if you have 7 or 8 guys on the line of scrimmage why you would play zone behind it when the pressure you may generate would cause a QB to get rid of the ball quickly and if you are playing man coverage you may be able to make a play on the ball. The other thing that bothers me is when on those same 3rd and long plays you see a CB release a WR without the safety there to back him up. Why is this still happening after this staff has had this scheme in place for so long?

[nfoligno]

I remember last year, Alex Brown was asked about our DLs inability to rush the passer. He said some stuff, but was bleeding in the mouth from biting his tongue so hard. Anyway, he was basically trying to say you can't rush the passer when the QB is taking 3 step drops. I think this was talked about after the TB game when (Garcia?) threw like 50 times and we never got a sack on him. Brown was basically trying to make the point that, when we allow those quick routes, you just can't get to the passer before he can get rid of the ball.

 

I agree so much w/ this. If your CBs play tighter, yes, you risk getting burned. At the same time, playing tighter far better allows your DL an opportunity to rush the passer and the QB is forced to hold the ball a little longer. W/ our CBs playing so far off the LOS, it amazes me we are ever able to rush the passer.

 

As for your last point, that kills me too. While our safety play has not killed us as it has in previous years, at the same time, you can see the lack of execution by how huge the holes in our zones are. When I see other teams play a zone, often the CB bumps the WR at the LOS, which buys the Safety time to get into position. But we don't bump the WR and allow clean releases, which makes our safeties job very difficult. He simply can't get into position quick enough.

 

I really just do not understand our scheme. In so many areas, I see how we are trying to do one thing, but something else we do seems to make that impossible.

 

- We want to generate a pass rush, but we give WRs such a cushion as to allow 3 step drop routes uncontested, making QB pressure near impossible.

 

- We play a zone, which requires the safety to read the play, react to what receiver is running which route, and to then get into that area, but we do not contest the WR at the LOS, and thus WRs are able to get into the zone holes before the S has time to get there.

 

- We play a zone, which should mean the CB has over the top help. That usually means the CB has more lattitude to press the WR, but instead, we play as if we still fear being beaten deep. In the end, I would argue we only make life easier for the WR because they are able to simply run their route w/o having to work against the CB.

 

- Finally, in the cover two, the CB is expected to take away the sideline or outside, and to try and funnel the WR into the middle where the LB or safety helps. BUT because of how we use our LBs and safeties to blitz or fake blitz, they are out of position. Thus WRs are able to run cross patterns and slants and our LB/S is not in position to help the CB. Our CB may actually do as expected, but still looks like they are getting killed because the help they are supposed to receive is not there, and thus all we see is our CB chasing the WR from behind.

 

 

 

Hey NFO I see this the same way you do and can't understand if you have 7 or 8 guys on the line of scrimmage why you would play zone behind it when the pressure you may generate would cause a QB to get rid of the ball quickly and if you are playing man coverage you may be able to make a play on the ball. The other thing that bothers me is when on those same 3rd and long plays you see a CB release a WR without the safety there to back him up. Why is this still happening after this staff has had this scheme in place for so long?

 

[defiantgiant]

Finally, in the cover two, the CB is expected to take away the sideline or outside, and to try and funnel the WR into the middle where the LB or safety helps. BUT because of how we use our LBs and safeties to blitz or fake blitz, they are out of position. Thus WRs are able to run cross patterns and slants and our LB/S is not in position to help the CB. Our CB may actually do as expected, but still looks like they are getting killed because the help they are supposed to receive is not there, and thus all we see is our CB chasing the WR from behind.

 

This is right on the money. Even in a perfect world, the Tampa 2 still has a seam between the CB's coverage zone and the OLB's zone. That's why people call quick slants to beat a Tampa 2 look. However, if you're rushing 4 and lining up the linebackers relatively deep, like the scheme calls for, that slant should be in pretty tight coverage. The WR should initially be covered by the CB, then he should get passed off to the OLB as he heads toward the middle. If you attack that seam against a base Tampa 2 look, you're throwing a 4-5 yard pass into what's effectively double coverage, so any completions should be for a pretty short gain: 4-5 yards with little or no YAC. If you blitz/mug the LBs up near the line of scrimmage, though, you take them out of position to cover.

 

The 2007-2008 defense blitzed the OLBs while playing the corners off as if they had OLB help. So there was a big hole in coverage over the middle, and teams picked them apart with passes to the seam whenever they saw a blitz. So Babich threw in a lot of fake blitzes (the "mug" look from last season) which let the LBs cover, but still put them out of position to get to the seam in time. Same result - quick slant gets 10 yards every time.

 

I think the coverage has looked much better since Lovie started calling the plays. He's still blitzing the LBs, but I haven't seen the giant hole over the middle that was there all last season: for the most part, the corners have been playing like they don't have help when we blitz. They might not jam at the line much, but they're playing tighter when we blitz. There have been a couple of blown coverages (like when Vasher and Payne got torched by Greg Jennings) but that's not the same as the constant slants that were basically against air last year. I mean, Brian Griese threw for 400 yards on us, and I don't think I saw him complete a single pass longer than about 12 yards. He just took that 10-yard slant all day long.

 

Also, Lovie's been blitzing on early downs, then going into the Tampa 2, WITHOUT the mug, on 3rd down and in passing situations. One of the things I hated about Babich's playcalling was that he would use that unsound, hole-over-the-middle blitz/mug on 3rd and long, when you KNEW the other team had to pass. Predictably, we'd give up 12 or 15 yards and a 1st down.

 

Even when the Tampa 2 is working, the seam is a weakness: people are going to send a TE down that seam or slant a receiver into it, and there are going to be some short completions before the CB or OLB gets there for the tackle. It's frustrating to watch, but it's not a problem until it starts leading to opposing 1st downs. Our defense is the best in the league right now at forcing 3rd-down-and-10-or-longer: we can afford to move back to the Tampa 2 in those situations, as long as Lovie keeps playing the LBs deep so we only give up 4-5 yards on a slant, instead of 10.