Improv Game Day Thread: Jets vs Bears

[BearFan2000]

And if they did that and it was incomplete you would yell about that.

 

 

Don't we still need to win next week to have the #2?

[Boston Boxer]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! great win!

[ChileBear]

Effing cover 2, lol

WHEW!!!!!

[jason]

And if they did that and it was incomplete you would yell about that.

 

Nope. I have said TONS of times on here that I'm not a big fan of three up the gut runs. In almost no situation whatsoever. I hate it unless the other team doesn't have time outs and it's to run out the clock.

[azbearsfan]

Crazy game,

 

offense kept us in it. Defense was crap but sealed it in the end.

[adam]

Wow, man that was close, but a win is a win. We missed a short FG and threw a Pick-6 and still won, so I will take it.

[jason]

I can't believe the Bears won that game. The offense REALLY stepped up.

 

The final interception by Harris was pretty much the only time I like the cover-2 (which they were definitely running on that play). It's when the opponents need a lot of yards in little time, and the safety just gets to sit back, read the eyes, and break on the ball.

 

Either way, it was awesome to see the Bears pour on some points. Great to see a complete offensive performance. Martz, Cutler, Forte, Hester, and Knox had superb games.

[adam]

I can't believe the Bears won that game. The offense REALLY stepped up.

 

The final interception by Harris was pretty much the only time I like the cover-2 (which they were definitely running on that play). It's when the opponents need a lot of yards in little time, and the safety just gets to sit back, read the eyes, and break on the ball.

 

Either way, it was awesome to see the Bears pour on some points. Great to see a complete offensive performance. Martz, Cutler, Forte, Hester, and Knox had superb games.

That was almost the Cover-3 with Urlacher taking the deep middle, Harris had to only worry about the sideline and not the middle of his side of the field. Either way, I thought the O-Line played very solid allowing only 2 sacks which were really coverage sacks. Forte running hard, Hester with more long returns, and Cutler coming back strong in that 3rd quarter. 21-10 in the 2nd half and that was with the missed FG, so good halftime adjustments.

[jason]

That was almost the Cover-3 with Urlacher taking the deep middle, Harris had to only worry about the sideline and not the middle of his side of the field. Either way, I thought the O-Line played very solid allowing only 2 sacks which were really coverage sacks. Forte running hard, Hester with more long returns, and Cutler coming back strong in that 3rd quarter. 21-10 in the 2nd half and that was with the missed FG, so good halftime adjustments.

 

Actually, that's the MLB's responsibility for the cover-2.

 

I must admit that I agree with the OL thoughts. This was the first game, in my opinion, that they have had a very good game. They had a couple false starts, but for the most part they gave cutback lanes, led well on sweeps and tosses, and protected Cutler very well.

[BearFan2000]

Today was a gutsy win. When we needed the offense to keep pace because the D was escorting the Jets to the end zone we kept striking the end zone matching them punch for punch. This was a wild game all around and man how many times did my heart about jump out of my chest. If we'd have played even decent on D we could have blown them out. One thing the Bears did show is they are capable of going toe to toe in a shoot out. That pick 6 and the missed FG were huge when they happened. But were for the most part the two biggest black marks on the the Offense and all in all they are forgiven because they kept us in the game when the D was giving away points like it was going out of style.

 

On D we got virtually no pressure on Sanchez was he even knocked down at all? We sat back in coverage and let them make the catches and hoped to make a tackle or strip. It's a passive Defensive philosophy akin to a a cop setting a speed trap waiting for someone else to screw up. We wait for the opponent to make mistakes whether it's a bad throw, a shot to strip the ball, a pick, etc. Our defense doesn't attack it sits and waits for a mistake to try to capitalize on. It's only effective when we get turnovers. No turnovers and we give the opponents easy drives for points. it's a Gutless way to play defense.

[ChileBear]

On D we got virtually no pressure on Sanchez was he even knocked down at all? We sat back in coverage and let them make the catches and hoped to make a tackle or strip. It's a passive Defensive philosophy akin to a a cop setting a speed trap waiting for someone else to screw up. We wait for the opponent to make mistakes whether it's a bad throw, a shot to strip the ball, a pick, etc. Our defense doesn't attack it sits and waits for a mistake to try to capitalize on. It's only effective when we get turnovers. No turnovers and we give the opponents easy drives for points. it's a Gutless way to play defense.

Hope they wake up and play agressive in the playoffs. We are going to need the D and the O for the postseason.

[Connorbear]

On D we got virtually no pressure on Sanchez was he even knocked down at all? We sat back in coverage and let them make the catches and hoped to make a tackle or strip. It's a passive Defensive philosophy akin to a a cop setting a speed trap waiting for someone else to screw up. We wait for the opponent to make mistakes whether it's a bad throw, a shot to strip the ball, a pick, etc. Our defense doesn't attack it sits and waits for a mistake to try to capitalize on. It's only effective when we get turnovers. No turnovers and we give the opponents easy drives for points. it's a Gutless way to play defense.

 

This is the basis of the cover-2 which they actually play less than 50% of the time. You have to generate pressure from the front 4. Personally, I wouldn't call it gutless - it is just part of the scheme.

 

Peace

[azbearsfan]

This is the basis of the cover-2 which they actually play less than 50% of the time. You have to generate pressure from the front 4. Personally, I wouldn't call it gutless - it is just part of the scheme.

 

Peace

 

 

This, its not like we are in that all the time, its just makes for good complaining when they dont play well. Its real catchy to scream cover-2, cover 2 all the time.

 

Its not like they are just sitting around waiting around either, they are trying to force mistakes. Its not as passive as some would make it out to be.

 

 

[jason]

This, its not like we are in that all the time, its just makes for good complaining when they dont play well. Its real catchy to scream cover-2, cover 2 all the time.

 

Its not like they are just sitting around waiting around either, they are trying to force mistakes. Its not as passive as some would make it out to be.

 

Don't pretend like the cover-2 defense isn't a defense designed to sit back, allow plays up front, and then make tackles. I admit it's a slow bleed kind of defense, and works some times (like the last play for the Harris INT) but when the team continually allows 5-7 yard routes down the field to multiple teams, if it's not explicitly the cover-2, then it's the variation of it that Lovie and company run - and it sucks. Either way, those plays are open all day every day, and they've turned average QBs into studs against the Bears' D time and time again.

 

It's passive; there's no argument. Waiting for the opponent to make mistakes is different than attacking and forcing mistakes. It seems that the Bears' defensive scheme is designed to do more of the former, and less of the latter. For the most part, however, the Bears have just been very fortunate to get all the necessary turnovers this year.

[Connorbear]

Don't pretend like the cover-2 defense isn't a defense designed to sit back, allow plays up front, and then make tackles. I admit it's a slow bleed kind of defense, and works some times (like the last play for the Harris INT) but when the team continually allows 5-7 yard routes down the field to multiple teams, if it's not explicitly the cover-2, then it's the variation of it that Lovie and company run - and it sucks. Either way, those plays are open all day every day, and they've turned average QBs into studs against the Bears' D time and time again.

 

It's passive; there's no argument. Waiting for the opponent to make mistakes is different than attacking and forcing mistakes. It seems that the Bears' defensive scheme is designed to do more of the former, and less of the latter. For the most part, however, the Bears have just been very fortunate to get all the necessary turnovers this year.

The bears have led the NFL in creating turnovers since Lovie took over as head coach. You can call it passive but it does exactly what it is supposed to do - generate turnovers.

 

Peace

[adam]

In all of this, it is nice to win a game when the defense was off. We missed a FG and had a Pick-6 against us, and still won.

[jason]

The bears have led the NFL in creating turnovers since Lovie took over as head coach. You can call it passive but it does exactly what it is supposed to do - generate turnovers.

 

Peace

 

Of that there is no debate. I cannot argue with the turnover aspect of the cover-2/Tampa-2/Lovie-2. Sure, it's infuriating to watch as a Bears fan. And there is no doubt that there are tons of holes in it. But make no mistake, it frustrates the average opponent into making bad decisions...which lead to at least some of the turnovers.

[azbearsfan]

Of that there is no debate. I cannot argue with the turnover aspect of the cover-2/Tampa-2/Lovie-2. Sure, it's infuriating to watch as a Bears fan. And there is no doubt that there are tons of holes in it. But make no mistake, it frustrates the average opponent into making bad decisions...which lead to at least some of the turnovers.

 

 

Yeah, average opponents like the Eagles and Jets, jeez.

[AZ54]

That's exactly what the Bears D is designed to do. No big plays, pressure up front so quick decisions have to be made, then capitalize on the mistake.

[jason]

Yeah, average opponents like the Eagles and Jets, jeez.

 

Spare me. The "average opponents" comment was in regard to the turnovers. But since you bring up those teams...

 

Bears vs Eagles

Vick raped the defense for over 300 yards of offense, and his INT was on a tipped ball that landed right in Chris Harris's gut. No other turnovers. Gave up 26 points.

 

Bears vs Jets

-Sanchez had his fourth best yardage and second best passing percentage this year while nearly getting 300 yards. Pretty good for a team that runs first. Oh, and his only INT? Late game, forced throw, desperation pass which played perfectly into the strength of the defense (which I have already acknowledged). The only other turnover was an early fumble caused by Tim Jennings. Gave up 34 points.

 

I'm not so sure you want to use those two games as your shining examples in defense of the Cover/Tampa/Lovie-2.

 

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Vick didn't rape the Bears. The Bears absolutely shut down the best offense in the NFL. They had a huge lead and the Eagles couldn't muster any big play. There is a reason why every team in the NFL is using the Bears game plan against the Eagles too.

 

The Jets did whoop us, no denying that. But as a whole, you look at who this defense has went up against and outside of the Jets game I believe the defense has held the offense to worse numbers than they were averaging as a whole. And its by a decent amount in most instances. That tells me we got a pretty good defense.

 

Is it perfect, no. Can it be beaten, certainly. We have holes just like every other team has holes and if you make mistakes and don't generate the QB it will struggle. But by and large it has gotten to the QB and forced pressure without excessive blitzes and is a top 5 defense in this league. There really isn't any debate that this is a top 5 defense.

 

Your expectations are delusional. I know we all would love to have the best offense and defense in the history of the world at the same time, but no team is perfect. The Bears have been far better than most and they probably won't go to the superbowl. I'm pretty happy as a fan that we've made it to this point. I'm hoping to win a playoff game but if not, oh well, I still chalk this up as a sucessful season given what my expectations were entering the year.

 

That said, like always, I'll be cheering like hell for them to win the superbowl!!

Spare me. The "average opponents" comment was in regard to the turnovers. But since you bring up those teams...

 

Bears vs Eagles

Vick raped the defense for over 300 yards of offense, and his INT was on a tipped ball that landed right in Chris Harris's gut. No other turnovers. Gave up 26 points.

 

Bears vs Jets

-Sanchez had his fourth best yardage and second best passing percentage this year while nearly getting 300 yards. Pretty good for a team that runs first. Oh, and his only INT? Late game, forced throw, desperation pass which played perfectly into the strength of the defense (which I have already acknowledged). The only other turnover was an early fumble caused by Tim Jennings. Gave up 34 points.

 

I'm not so sure you want to use those two games as your shining examples in defense of the Cover/Tampa/Lovie-2.

[jason]

Vick didn't rape the Bears. The Bears absolutely shut down the best offense in the NFL. They had a huge lead and the Eagles couldn't muster any big play. There is a reason why every team in the NFL is using the Bears game plan against the Eagles too.

 

The Jets did whoop us, no denying that. But as a whole, you look at who this defense has went up against and outside of the Jets game I believe the defense has held the offense to worse numbers than they were averaging as a whole. And its by a decent amount in most instances. That tells me we got a pretty good defense.

 

Is it perfect, no. Can it be beaten, certainly. We have holes just like every other team has holes and if you make mistakes and don't generate the QB it will struggle. But by and large it has gotten to the QB and forced pressure without excessive blitzes and is a top 5 defense in this league. There really isn't any debate that this is a top 5 defense.

 

Your expectations are delusional. I know we all would love to have the best offense and defense in the history of the world at the same time, but no team is perfect. The Bears have been far better than most and they probably won't go to the superbowl. I'm pretty happy as a fan that we've made it to this point. I'm hoping to win a playoff game but if not, oh well, I still chalk this up as a sucessful season given what my expectations were entering the year.

 

That said, like always, I'll be cheering like hell for them to win the superbowl!!

 

Vick went over 300 yards in that game. In case you've never watched football before, that's pretty much the good game benchmark for a QB. The Bears allowed him to do so. Also, you're blind if you think the other teams are copying the Bears in their defense of the Eagles. Either that or you didn't watch a single down of the Minnesota vs. Philly game when Minnesota did nearly nothing the same as the Bears and yielded much better results.

 

I agree that nothing is perfect, and this defense has done well. I just don't favor the slow bleed is all. I think an attacking defense - like the Eagles and Steelers for so many years - can be just as successful. My expectations are not delusional; they're just different that what this team does. Like you, however, if the results are wins, I am willing to accept it and cheer on the Bears towards the Super Bowl.

 

The major problem is, we all see that this team is good, but isn't quite there yet. You admit as much by saying they probably won't go the SB. If they make it to the SB it will be a huge surprise. I believe that's what this team has become: a consistent B to B+ student. It's great; you pass, and you're ahead of the curve. Some may be content with the B to B+, but that's not in my DNA. Some rest when they get to that level, but I think it's still the time for change. I'd like an A or to be the valedictorian.

 

Here's to hoping the slow changes keep improving the Bears and they eventually reach the top.