Questioning the Rodriguez draft pick

[jason]

So, if Davis is so highly sought after, and the Bears believe in him so much, and he is such a great fit for the Bates/Tice attack, and Briggs thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread, why was Rodriguez drafted?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,7334055.story

[balta1701-A]

If Rodriguez is everything they hope he'd be, he'd be a compliment to Davis, not a replacement, he's a different type of player.

 

The Trib is telling this story as him being "highly sought after", but really, the reason why the Bears let the Cowboys talk to him is so that they wouldn't be the only ones setting the market for this player. If the Cowboys had an offer out there, then he has a Cowboy offer that the Bears can compare to.

[Stinger226]

So, if Davis is so highly sought after, and the Bears believe in him so much, and he is such a great fit for the Bates/Tice attack, and Briggs thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread, why was Rodriguez drafted?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,7334055.story

I think Davis is a question mark and to get the TE in the passing game this year, you needed another option if he fails. It is just about options.

[Wesson44]

So, if Davis is so highly sought after, and the Bears believe in him so much, and he is such a great fit for the Bates/Tice attack, and Briggs thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread, why was Rodriguez drafted?

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,7334055.story

 

They drafted Rodriguez because they want to copy the scheme that that Patriots are using with the two pass catching TE's. He would be used to replace Clutts in the passing game as the H-back, plus it gives Cutler more faster weapons and creates mismatches for the offense

[Guest TerraTor]

They drafted Rodriguez because they want to copy the scheme that that Patriots are using with the two pass catching TE's. He would be used to replace Clutts in the passing game as the H-back, plus it gives Cutler more faster weapons and creates mismatches for the offense

 

 

until his first suspension.....

[Alaskan Grizzly]

They drafted Rodriguez because they want to copy the scheme that that Patriots are using with the two pass catching TE's. He would be used to replace Clutts in the passing game as the H-back, plus it gives Cutler more faster weapons and creates mismatches for the offense

 

^ This ^

 

The popular trend nowadays seems to be this two TE threat that has been successful for NE. So why not give it a try

Besides, didn't Emery spend some time with the Patriot organization? Maybe thats where he got the idea from.

[scs787]

Ya man where have you been, 2 TE is the way to go.

[jason]

Isn't the point to have one TE who excels at blocking and one who excels at receiving? For a collective group that so desperately wants a balanced offense, you sure sound like a group who wants a 70/30 pass-run ratio.

 

Davis, Rodriguez, Spaeth, if in that order on the depth chart, and the first two are used together, make this more of a passing team than a running team.

[balta1701-A]

Isn't the point to have one TE who excels at blocking and one who excels at receiving? For a collective group that so desperately wants a balanced offense, you sure sound like a group who wants a 70/30 pass-run ratio.

 

Davis, Rodriguez, Spaeth, if in that order on the depth chart, and the first two are used together, make this more of a passing team than a running team.

Some of that balance in the modern league appears because teams can build a lead using their passing game and then grind down the clock using the running game.

[jason]

Some of that balance in the modern league appears because teams can build a lead using their passing game and then grind down the clock using the running game.

 

Agreed. But those teams are not the Bears, and haven't been the Bears as long as I've been alive. The second part of the equation "grind down the clock" is definitely something Lovie Smith is a fan of, but the "build a lead using the passing game" part is very abnormal for the Bears.

 

I'd love for them to turn into the Patriots 2.0, but until that happens the Rodriguez draft pick is curious.

[balta1701-A]

Agreed. But those teams are not the Bears, and haven't been the Bears as long as I've been alive. The second part of the equation "grind down the clock" is definitely something Lovie Smith is a fan of, but the "build a lead using the passing game" part is very abnormal for the Bears.

 

I'd love for them to turn into the Patriots 2.0, but until that happens the Rodriguez draft pick is curious.

And the Bears right now have a combination of their best QB since you've been alive (or at least they should have that) and the most pass-friendly rules that the league has had since you've been alive.

 

When the Steelers get to Super Bowls led by their passing attack and not their running game, the message is clear.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed. Whether we've seen it before or not, it needs to be.

 

And the Bears right now have a combination of their best QB since you've been alive (or at least they should have that) and the most pass-friendly rules that the league has had since you've been alive.

 

When the Steelers get to Super Bowls led by their passing attack and not their running game, the message is clear.

 

[Wesson44]

Agreed. But those teams are not the Bears, and haven't been the Bears as long as I've been alive. The second part of the equation "grind down the clock" is definitely something Lovie Smith is a fan of, but the "build a lead using the passing game" part is very abnormal for the Bears.

 

I'd love for them to turn into the Patriots 2.0, but until that happens the Rodriguez draft pick is curious.

 

So the Bears maybe are tying something new this year because Martz is gone......if it works the getting a lead then grinding down the clock part make for good wins I'm all for it. Good teams do it all the time and we are trying to be a good team.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Jason, I will agree with you that traditionally the Bears are known to be a running team. I'm not normally comfortable with seeing them do different. But, as a few have pointed out this is a team in a state of metamorphosis. Cutler is unquestionably one of the best QBs in the league. You yourself want nothing less for him to be able to stay upright in the pocket. Why else would he need to other than to pass? Now he has the likes of Brandon Marshall, most here would agree he's easily a #1 receiver on most teams in the NFL. Alshon Jeffery is a projected top flight receiver, definitely large bodied...again something many here were hoping for. Now with Davis many hope he will able to "produce". Produce what, blocks? And as earlier pointed out Rodriguez is an addition a kin to what you have seen in New England...or at least thats the belief. Heck even the Bears top runner and overall offensive producer was one of the teams lead receivers the last few years. That's something Forte is pretty good at, so why not exploit it.

 

So like you, this pass first mentality is something foreign to me, especially in Chicago. But the pieces are coming together for something totally different. And I have to admit it's pretty exciting.

[AZ54]

Davis is still a big "if" after all these years. Spaeth is not a dynamic player at all but he can usually block in line. His problem is blocking on the move, isn't that right Matt Forte? Kyle Adams is a total question mark at this time although he reportedly looked pretty good in the OTAs. I think we had to add a player to the mix and create some competition. Are we going to be upset if one of these four players gets cut given the level of competition?

 

Davis has $2.7million in signing bonus so he's not going anywhere but who are the next two on the depth chart? May the best two men win a job. Or could we keep all four and cut Clutts? If you're going H-back you probably don't need a FB.

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/football-chicago...?blockID=669942

UPDATE: According to ProFootballTalk, Davis will earn a $2.7 million signing bonus, a $700,000 base salary and a $100,000 workout bonus in 2012. In 2013, he'll earn a $2.4 million base salary with a $100,000 workout bonus. Davis will roughly earn $6 million for his two-year deal.

[jason]

And the Bears right now have a combination of their best QB since you've been alive (or at least they should have that) and the most pass-friendly rules that the league has had since you've been alive.

 

When the Steelers get to Super Bowls led by their passing attack and not their running game, the message is clear.

 

Now this I agree with...which is why I, once again, am one of the few people who was in favor of Martz (because he's much more about passing than running). Hell, I was in favor of Crowton.

 

I still don't know if the Rodriguez pick was a good one. I hope I'm wrong and he's Hernandez 2.0, but right now I don't see the Bears making a one-year change into a pass-heavy team that employs a double-TE set very frequently...particularly with one of the worst OLs in the NFL. Maybe it'll be a two-year work in progress, and that would be fine. I'm just pessimistic is all.

[Wesson44]

Now this I agree with...which is why I, once again, am one of the few people who was in favor of Martz (because he's much more about passing than running). Hell, I was in favor of Crowton.

 

I still don't know if the Rodriguez pick was a good one. I hope I'm wrong and he's Hernandez 2.0, but right now I don't see the Bears making a one-year change into a pass-heavy team that employs a double-TE set very frequently...particularly with one of the worst OLs in the NFL. Maybe it'll be a two-year work in progress, and that would be fine. I'm just pessimistic is all.

 

The Bears are not trying to be a pass happy team just a balanced team with more options than just Forte as the leading WR. Like Hester said with the WR'S, TE'S and RB'S we how have its hard for teams to game plan against us when you can both run and throw the ball. Just like it was easy to game plan against the Packers because they had a week running game, the Vikings with no passing game, but teams like the 49ers, Texans, who had balance it was hard to either play the pass or stack the box.

[jason]

The Bears are not trying to be a pass happy team just a balanced team with more options than just Forte as the leading WR. Like Hester said with the WR'S, TE'S and RB'S we how have its hard for teams to game plan against us when you can both run and throw the ball. Just like it was easy to game plan against the Packers because they had a week running game, the Vikings with no passing game, but teams like the 49ers, Texans, who had balance it was hard to either play the pass or stack the box.

 

I prefer a balanced attack, but don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years.

[Wesson44]

I prefer a balanced attack, but don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years.

 

Yes they have,but they are a pass happy team..if you could stop them in their passing game then they fall apart with out a running game

[AZ54]

 

"I prefer a balanced attack, but don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years."

 

Although last year last year they ran away with it especially the last game of the season but other than that one I don't agree with your statement. Maybe scoring 10pts is getting torn up in your opinion but it seems to me one team has been right there holding their offense in check.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears–Packers_rivalry

 

2009 Sunday, September 13 Green Bay Packers 21–15 Chicago Bears 70,920 Green Bay

2009 Sunday, December 13 Green Bay Packers 21–14 Chicago Bears 62,214 Chicago

[edit]2010s (Packers 4-1)

Year Date Winner Result Loser Attendance Location

2010 Monday, September 27 Chicago Bears 20–17 Green Bay Packers 62,179 Chicago

2011 Sunday, January 2 Green Bay Packers 10–3 Chicago Bears 70,833 Green Bay

2011 Sunday, January 23* Green Bay Packers 21-14 Chicago Bears 64,912 Chicago

2011 Sunday, September 25 Green Bay Packers 27-17 Chicago Bears 62,339 Chicago

2011 Sunday, December 25 Green Bay Packers 35-21 Chicago Bears 70,093 Green Bay

 

[Wesson44]

"I prefer a balanced attack, but don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years."

 

Although last year last year they ran away with it especially the last game of the season but other than that one I don't agree with your statement. Maybe scoring 10pts is getting torn up in your opinion but it seems to me one team has been right there holding their offense in check.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears–Packers_rivalry

 

2009 Sunday, September 13 Green Bay Packers 21–15 Chicago Bears 70,920 Green Bay

2009 Sunday, December 13 Green Bay Packers 21–14 Chicago Bears 62,214 Chicago

[edit]2010s (Packers 4-1)

Year Date Winner Result Loser Attendance Location

2010 Monday, September 27 Chicago Bears 20–17 Green Bay Packers 62,179 Chicago

2011 Sunday, January 2 Green Bay Packers 10–3 Chicago Bears 70,833 Green Bay

2011 Sunday, January 23* Green Bay Packers 21-14 Chicago Bears 64,912 Chicago

2011 Sunday, September 25 Green Bay Packers 27-17 Chicago Bears 62,339 Chicago

2011 Sunday, December 25 Green Bay Packers 35-21 Chicago Bears 70,093 Green Bay

 

Yes i see your figures and if you look at the rushing stats compared to the passing ones you will see that Green Bay wins only because of their passing game.

[jason]

"I prefer a balanced attack, but don't kid yourself, it was FAR from easy to gameplan against the Packers. They've been tearing the entire league a new ass for more than a few years."

 

Although last year last year they ran away with it especially the last game of the season but other than that one I don't agree with your statement. Maybe scoring 10pts is getting torn up in your opinion but it seems to me one team has been right there holding their offense in check.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears–Packers_rivalry

 

2009 Sunday, September 13 Green Bay Packers 21–15 Chicago Bears 70,920 Green Bay

2009 Sunday, December 13 Green Bay Packers 21–14 Chicago Bears 62,214 Chicago

[edit]2010s (Packers 4-1)

Year Date Winner Result Loser Attendance Location

2010 Monday, September 27 Chicago Bears 20–17 Green Bay Packers 62,179 Chicago

2011 Sunday, January 2 Green Bay Packers 10–3 Chicago Bears 70,833 Green Bay

2011 Sunday, January 23* Green Bay Packers 21-14 Chicago Bears 64,912 Chicago

2011 Sunday, September 25 Green Bay Packers 27-17 Chicago Bears 62,339 Chicago

2011 Sunday, December 25 Green Bay Packers 35-21 Chicago Bears 70,093 Green Bay

 

I was referring to the Packers' elevated offensive statistics, not necessarily their games against the Bears. By and large, the Packers are not an easy team to gameplan for, regardless of whether or not they are overly pass-heavy. They've been a top-ten offense in the league for the majority of the past decade.

 

In the games you've listed, the Packers averaged 22 PPG. As for the 10 point game, that was an abnormal game because A-The Bears had nearly nothing to play for, B-The Packers dropped more than one huge reception, C-Tillman made an incredible diving INT when the Packers were driving That was a very bad game for the Packers, and they still won 10-3. If things don't go sour for them, they probably put up something really close to their 22 PPG average.

 

Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?

[balta1701-A]

I was referring to the Packers' elevated offensive statistics, not necessarily their games against the Bears. By and large, the Packers are not an easy team to gameplan for, regardless of whether or not they are overly pass-heavy. They've been a top-ten offense in the league for the majority of the past decade.

 

In the games you've listed, the Packers averaged 22 PPG. As for the 10 point game, that was an abnormal game because A-The Bears had nearly nothing to play for, B-The Packers dropped more than one huge reception, C-Tillman made an incredible diving INT when the Packers were driving That was a very bad game for the Packers, and they still won 10-3. If things don't go sour for them, they probably put up something really close to their 22 PPG average.

 

Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?

Over that time period, the Packers have averaged 29.37 points per game in the regular season as a whole.

[AZ54]

I was referring to the Packers' elevated offensive statistics, not necessarily their games against the Bears. By and large, the Packers are not an easy team to gameplan for, regardless of whether or not they are overly pass-heavy. They've been a top-ten offense in the league for the majority of the past decade.

 

In the games you've listed, the Packers averaged 22 PPG. As for the 10 point game, that was an abnormal game because A-The Bears had nearly nothing to play for, B-The Packers dropped more than one huge reception, C-Tillman made an incredible diving INT when the Packers were driving That was a very bad game for the Packers, and they still won 10-3. If things don't go sour for them, they probably put up something really close to their 22 PPG average.

 

Do you consider giving up three TDs per game a defensive success for the Bears?

 

 

You can't switch the argument or statement from one of the Packers offense being dominant to one of the Bears defense being dominant. to borrow a term another person likes to use on this board: Read the post and the original statement.

 

I don't consider scoring 22pts per game a huge offensive success. Pointing out plays where their players dropped passes is like saying Webb is a great LT once he gets his feet set and his hands on his man. Or should I simply state that if Major Wright didn't complete whiff on a tackle then the Packers wouldn't have scored? If Bowman doesn't line up 5 yards off his man at the goal line than that quick slant pass couldn't have been completed in the last game?

 

 

If 22pts per game is your standard of excellence for offense then you should be ecstatic over the results of last year's Bears:

17 Chicago Bears 16 22.1 353 (as in 22.1pts per game average)

 

 

I don't really care about other teams, because again, the statement was that all teams have struggled against the Packers offense for several years yet we have matched up well prior to last year. I simply provided some facts to show that was not the case for all teams. Remove the absolute and we are in agreement, most teams have trouble matching up with Green Bay's offense. However, it can be done.

[Wesson44]

You can't switch the argument or statement from one of the Packers offense being dominant to one of the Bears defense being dominant. to borrow a term another person likes to use on this board: Read the post and the original statement.

 

I don't consider scoring 22pts per game a huge offensive success. Pointing out plays where their players dropped passes is like saying Webb is a great LT once he gets his feet set and his hands on his man. Or should I simply state that if Major Wright didn't complete whiff on a tackle then the Packers wouldn't have scored? If Bowman doesn't line up 5 yards off his man at the goal line than that quick slant pass couldn't have been completed in the last game?

 

 

If 22pts per game is your standard of excellence for offense then you should be ecstatic over the results of last year's Bears:

17 Chicago Bears 16 22.1 353 (as in 22.1pts per game average)

 

 

I don't really care about other teams, because again, the statement was that all teams have struggled against the Packers offense for several years yet we have matched up well prior to last year. I simply provided some facts to show that was not the case for all teams. Remove the absolute and we are in agreement, most teams have trouble matching up with Green Bay's offense. However, it can be done.

 

Yes you are right, didnt they get beaten by the Chiefs and the Giants too last year?