lemonej Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 I always like to read these posts that come during game time because the passion and emotion that everyone exudes during the game is amusing. I tend to avoid posting during games because of some of the obscenities that are coming out of my mouth during games.I must have said "Run the F***ing football 75 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 They didn't show the game where I live...only the last 2 minutes, which was of course the best part. But it is indeed funny to read the posts from beginning to end in retrospect. ...from "we can't do anything right we're the worst, right down to our core players" to "we've got a special group of guys here". Granted, the pessimists and the optimists probably are different people; how the game is going just dictates who feels more like posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colum...,7089264.column Interesting piece from Pompei. Says the offensive line didn't play nearly as bad as it looked out there. Based on the tape, they were only responsible for 2 of the sacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colum...,7089264.column Interesting piece from Pompei. Says the offensive line didn't play nearly as bad as it looked out there. Based on the tape, they were only responsible for 2 of the sacks. Interesting, but misleading. 1. So if Spaeth and Webb tangle feet, it's on Spaeth and not Webb? This is odd since Spaeth is known for being a superb blocking TE - sure as hell isn't a superb receiving TE - and Webb is known as being one of the worst pass blocking OTs in the NFL. The mere fact that Spaeth needs to be over on Webb's side is actually an indictment on Webb. 2. I don't particularly recall this one, so I guess I'll agree that Cutler held it too long if he did, in fact, hold it 5 seconds. I doubt the 5 second claim, because I doesn't seem like he ever had 5 seconds to hold it, but we'll chalk this one up as Jay's fault. 3. Yes, this is ultimately on Jay. A screen pass can be thrown at the feet of the RB with virtually no risk or fear of foul. However, if you watch the play again, neither Webb nor Rachal sell the run play. And Rachal does a particularly horrible job at it. Horrible. No wonder the Bears can't pull off a RB screen. Wouldn't you know it?! Who breaks up the possibility for a RB screen? That's right, the guys that Rachal and Webb were supposed to block or sell. 4. This shows Pompei's bias. The mere fact that Cutler had to step forward to avoid the rush, and is consequently sacked, is clear that it's on the OL, but Pompei makes this unwinnable. Cutler kept his eyes downfield, and doesn't have time to look down at each of the oncoming DLinemen to choose where the best angle/opening is. If he had, Pompei would have ripped him for taking his eyes off the receivers or giving up on the pass too quickly. 5 & 6. He had no choice but to blame these on the OL. At most Cutler is responsible for two sacks (2 & 3). But in terms of an offensive play that didn't work, and results in the negative, Cutler is only responsible for #2. At most the OL is responsible for four sacks (1,4,5,6), and the OL failed on the screen play (3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Interesting, but misleading. 1. So if Spaeth and Webb tangle feet, it's on Spaeth and not Webb? This is odd since Spaeth is known for being a superb blocking TE - sure as hell isn't a superb receiving TE - and Webb is known as being one of the worst pass blocking OTs in the NFL. The mere fact that Spaeth needs to be over on Webb's side is actually an indictment on Webb. If Spaeth gets pushed out of position and winds up running into Webb, yes, that's on Spaeth for getting out of position. And no, the fact that you put a blocking TE on the side of your LT is not an indictment of Webb...that is...exactly what you should be doing against a team's better pass rushers, particularly from your QB's blind side. Teams that run effective O-Line groups do not leave their LT out on an island with no help against a team's best pass rusher unless the playcall has a quick 3 step drop/throw option. They add in help, or at least a chip and release. PIck whatever "Good LT" you want to see, this is what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 In a nutshell, both Jay and the line are failing for about 3 quarters per game in this area... Thankfully, they seem to get it together at the 4th. One can hope they can start clicking more earlier... Interesting, but misleading. 1. So if Spaeth and Webb tangle feet, it's on Spaeth and not Webb? This is odd since Spaeth is known for being a superb blocking TE - sure as hell isn't a superb receiving TE - and Webb is known as being one of the worst pass blocking OTs in the NFL. The mere fact that Spaeth needs to be over on Webb's side is actually an indictment on Webb. 2. I don't particularly recall this one, so I guess I'll agree that Cutler held it too long if he did, in fact, hold it 5 seconds. I doubt the 5 second claim, because I doesn't seem like he ever had 5 seconds to hold it, but we'll chalk this one up as Jay's fault. 3. Yes, this is ultimately on Jay. A screen pass can be thrown at the feet of the RB with virtually no risk or fear of foul. However, if you watch the play again, neither Webb nor Rachal sell the run play. And Rachal does a particularly horrible job at it. Horrible. No wonder the Bears can't pull off a RB screen. Wouldn't you know it?! Who breaks up the possibility for a RB screen? That's right, the guys that Rachal and Webb were supposed to block or sell. 4. This shows Pompei's bias. The mere fact that Cutler had to step forward to avoid the rush, and is consequently sacked, is clear that it's on the OL, but Pompei makes this unwinnable. Cutler kept his eyes downfield, and doesn't have time to look down at each of the oncoming DLinemen to choose where the best angle/opening is. If he had, Pompei would have ripped him for taking his eyes off the receivers or giving up on the pass too quickly. 5 & 6. He had no choice but to blame these on the OL. At most Cutler is responsible for two sacks (2 & 3). But in terms of an offensive play that didn't work, and results in the negative, Cutler is only responsible for #2. At most the OL is responsible for four sacks (1,4,5,6), and the OL failed on the screen play (3). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 If Spaeth gets pushed out of position and winds up running into Webb, yes, that's on Spaeth for getting out of position. And no, the fact that you put a blocking TE on the side of your LT is not an indictment of Webb...that is...exactly what you should be doing against a team's better pass rushers, particularly from your QB's blind side. Teams that run effective O-Line groups do not leave their LT out on an island with no help against a team's best pass rusher unless the playcall has a quick 3 step drop/throw option. They add in help, or at least a chip and release. PIck whatever "Good LT" you want to see, this is what they do. I'm not debating the strategy of it, I'm debating the frequency or necessity of it. Find that "Good LT" and I guarantee the frequency and/or necessity is lessened as compared to Webb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted November 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'm not debating the strategy of it, I'm debating the frequency or necessity of it. Find that "Good LT" and I guarantee the frequency and/or necessity is lessened as compared to Webb. If you drop the frequency of it, you will make your good LT look bad. These guys on the defensive line are just too fast, too strong for a single offensive lineman to handle them. If they can do anything they want, if they have inside, outside, and power rush all available to them, along with the numerous trick moves, they are going to be even a good linemen regularly if you leave them one on one. You have to disrupt that momentum and take away some of those options. It doesn't have to be a double team on every play...but the message I get by watching teams who rack up the passing yards is...there ought to be at least a chip attempt on the opposing team's best rusher on every single passing play that isn't a 3 step drop/slant or a screen. If you want to throw the ball down the field, you have to use your underneath options to hit the shoulder of that defender, break his momentum, or at least take away the outside options and force him into your lineman. A team that doesn't do that can still win, but they've decided they can win while giving up a fair number of sacks (that's the Packers way). Teams like the Saints, Patriots, who still want to look down the field without giving up the extra sacks, they hit that lineman with a TE or RB and then that guy becomes the underneath/check down option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 If you drop the frequency of it, you will make your good LT look bad. These guys on the defensive line are just too fast, too strong for a single offensive lineman to handle them. If they can do anything they want, if they have inside, outside, and power rush all available to them, along with the numerous trick moves, they are going to be even a good linemen regularly if you leave them one on one. You have to disrupt that momentum and take away some of those options. It doesn't have to be a double team on every play...but the message I get by watching teams who rack up the passing yards is...there ought to be at least a chip attempt on the opposing team's best rusher on every single passing play that isn't a 3 step drop/slant or a screen. If you want to throw the ball down the field, you have to use your underneath options to hit the shoulder of that defender, break his momentum, or at least take away the outside options and force him into your lineman. A team that doesn't do that can still win, but they've decided they can win while giving up a fair number of sacks (that's the Packers way). Teams like the Saints, Patriots, who still want to look down the field without giving up the extra sacks, they hit that lineman with a TE or RB and then that guy becomes the underneath/check down option. So you're telling me there is no difference in terms of play-calling as to what type of assistance a LT gets in the NFL based upon how good that LT is? That's ridiculous. The frequency matters. And the frequency is entirely dependent upon how good the LT is. The better the LT, the less frequently he needs help. That help can be used elsewhere, or sent out on a supplementary route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grouchy Bear Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 Good night sleep tight guys maybe next week. Damn I sound like a cub fan . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.