Chicago Bears @ Houston Texans, 11/11/12

[jason]

You're picking nits with the offensive line. They played extremely well, especially in pass protection. They have a guy named JJ Watt, who's pretty good. Was his named called at all last night? They doubled him well enough to where they left Jamarcus alone with Barwin most of the game, and he held up well. The run blocking wasn't as bad as it looked. Forte had a horrendously poor game yesterday. There were cut backs that he missed all night long. Was it their best run blocking performance? I don't know. But Forte had a lot to do with it. Like I said, if he's not seeing the cutbacks, the guy goes down on first contact more than any other starting RB that I can recall.

 

With that said, now next week they'll probably do everything wrong and put everybody on suicide watch against the 49'ers.

 

As you'd expect, I don't think it's picking nits.

 

Run-blocking was very bad.

Pass-blocking was good.

 

This is unsatisfactory in a game with such muddy, rainy, slippery conditions. With a slippery surface the defense is at a distinct disadvantage, and the Bears couldn't capitalize because the OL almost never opened a hole. And the pass blocking was good more because of the same slippery surface, and less because of their stellar performance.

[jason]

Davis got knocked off his route. I wouldn't target Davis unless he is wide open with no one is within 15 yards of him.

 

Thank you. Exactly.

[jason]

safety was waiting all day on the first one. Just a poor decision on the throw. But I agree Davis is terrible.

 

Your anti-Cutler slip is showing.

 

That is an NFL route completed every game. If Davis doesn't get bumped - very weakly - off his route, that's in a window after one defender and before another. If Davis doesn't get lightly bumped out of the way, he's in a perfect position to shield the defender for the catch in the window.

[Lucky Luciano]

Yes, that's exactly what you are doing. Also, newsflash-- EVERY team in the NFL chips and double teams dominant pass rushers in this league. This is not a new development for offensive line practices. Did the Texans not try and double team Julius Peppers last night?

 

here's a newsflash.... YOU are the one who in your previous posts stated how well the OFFENSIVE LINE looked. not the TE's, FB's or RB's along with our tackles to doubleteam this watt guy or anybody else. i never stated it was new or unusual but if you NEED to double team a guy nearly every play can you really say that offensive lineman whose ASSIGNMENT is to block that guy and he can't do it on an island played excellent that game? really? that's not nit picking, it's the reality of the situation.

 

did carimi play well and better than the last two previous games? SURE for the most part with HELP i agree.

 

but... i ALSO have to look at what he did when the game was on the line... with 2 min left in the GAME and we are down by 7 it's 2nd down and 13 on our own 35. on a completion by cambell to hester for 7 yards carimi gets a holding penalty (uhh who did he hold on this play?).

 

we now are backed up to our own 25 yard line and it's 2nd down and 23 with 2:06 to go instead of 3rd down and 6 from our 42 yard line. we never recover from this penalty - game over. does that count into your "excellent" performance?

 

will he get better? i think he can be a good tackle in our future but right now he is not "excellent" by any stretch of the imagination. he needs more playing time to find the groove of NFL play just like nearly any new offensive lineman.

 

They played their best game of the season last night. I thought Carimi really stepped up after two awful back to back performances from the weeks prior. The quarterbacks had all day to throw. The run blocking, like I said was not nearly as bad as it looked. I thought Forte just simply had a bad game. Michael Bush didn't seem to have much of a problem getting yards. Had he not fumbled on the 2nd possession of the game, maybe he helps spark the run game.

 

what leads you to believe the run blocking was not as bad as it looked? i don't understand that statement. it looked AWFUL to me except for a few plays. in my opinion forte had nothing to work with for open lanes to run through. his cutting ability in those conditions does not exist so there is no bouncing out of a filled hole to make something happen with speed or elusiveness. our guards (with a POSSIBLE exception of lance luis) and center did nothing to get a push off the LOS. our tackles were barely holding the LOS with the help of a TE or HB let alone blasting any semblance of a hole for our backs to run through.

 

and bush? in my opinion this dumb coaching staff missed the boat again. this is the straight ahead guy we supposedly use in the red zone because of his power and size. yet in these conditions our power back gets >>3

 

So in your eyes, no matter what the offensive line did last night, it would have automatically been debunked due to the injuries from the other team? What kind of argument is that? We are talking about what happened on the field last night with who was out there. I don't deal in hypotheticals.

 

did i say that? my contention is that this type of game in this type of weather with those key players missing is NOT a yardstick on the quality of the performance. they played well/average CONSIDERING the circumstances that effected the game for both teams in pass protection. they did NOT run block well or anything close to well... period.

 

if you want to call this OL performance excellent that is your right to do so. to each his own. but to me it was not excellent and the facts and statistics support this if you want to look at them.

[jason]

and bush? in my opinion this dumb coaching staff missed the boat again. this is the straight ahead guy we supposedly use in the red zone because of his power and size. yet in these conditions our power back gets >>3

 

All of your other points are very good, but this one is the best.

 

Anyone remember that 2005 Pittsburgh game with nasty conditions when Bettis dump-trucked the Bears? When Bettis, a player past his prime, ran over Urlacher, who was in his prime? I remember it, and it doesn't take a genius to realize you go with the mudder when you have one.

 

 

[Bears4Ever_34]

If you want to have the opinion that they weren't that good, fine, though it's the wrong opinion, I think it was pretty obvious last night that they protected the quarterback better. Not only did they not allow a sack, against a great defense, there was barely any pressure on the quarterback all night. I still believe Matt Forte had more to do with the poor running performance than the offensive line did. I would imagine the rain may have had something to do with his inability to cutback, so I guess, if you want to use the rain as an excuse, you have to use it both ways.

 

I have no idea how you can say they only played average, even considering the circumstances. They weren't playing the Carolina Panthers, they were playing the Houston Texans. You're looking for every reason to not give them credit, and that is nitpicking. Was it a flawless performance, no? But was it pretty damn good? yes.

[jason]

If you want to have the opinion that they weren't that good, fine, though it's the wrong opinion, I think it was pretty obvious last night that they protected the quarterback better. Not only did they not allow a sack, against a great defense, there was barely any pressure on the quarterback all night. I still believe Matt Forte had more to do with the poor running performance than the offensive line did. I would imagine the rain may have had something to do with his inability to cutback, so I guess, if you want to use the rain as an excuse, you have to use it both ways.

 

I have no idea how you can say they only played average, even considering the circumstances. They weren't playing the Carolina Panthers, they were playing the Houston Texans. You're looking for every reason to not give them credit, and that is nitpicking. Was it a flawless performance, no? But was it pretty damn good? yes.

 

FWIW, I'm enjoying this.

 

Why is it hard to believe the conditions:

A ) Allowed the OL to pass block better

and

B ) Hindered the RBs for making cutbacks

and

C ) Hindered the DLs from effectively rushing

 

The last two require the ability to change direction, and the conditions didn't allow it. The first one takes advantage of the inability to change direction. It's the precise reason why the pass rush was bad for both teams. It's also a good reason why the Texans rushing game, which is primarily downhill, did much better than the Bears' rushing game, which is cutback oriented. What don't you understand about the concept of "slick field=difficulty changing directions"?

[Bears4Ever_34]

FWIW, I'm enjoying this.

 

Why is it hard to believe the conditions:

A ) Allowed the OL to pass block better

and

B ) Hindered the RBs for making cutbacks

and

C ) Hindered the DLs from effectively rushing

 

The last two require the ability to change direction, and the conditions didn't allow it. The first one takes advantage of the inability to change direction. It's the precise reason why the pass rush was bad for both teams. It's also a good reason why the Texans rushing game, which is primarily downhill, did much better than the Bears' rushing game, which is cutback oriented. What don't you understand about the concept of "slick field=difficulty changing directions"?

You need to read better, and look at the post again. I did mention that in my first paragraph. I know the conditions were more friendly for both offensive lines. My point is, you can't use the rain as a means to say they only played average. How could you possibly know how they would have played in perfect conditions? It doesn't work like that. In these weather conditions they played a great game. The Bears defense, though only 1 sack, seemed like they were getting more pressure on Schaub than what the Texans were able to do against the Bears offensive line.

 

Also, the Texans run game is based off of Foster's ability to set up defenders so he can cut back to the inside, which in the first half, killed the Bears, until they adjusted to it as the game went on. It's a "one cut and go" style.

[jason]

You need to read better, and look at the post again. I did mention that in my first paragraph. I know the conditions were more friendly for both offensive lines. My point is, you can't use the rain as a means to say they only played average. How could you possibly know how they would have played in perfect conditions? It doesn't work like that. In these weather conditions they played a great game. The Bears defense, though only 1 sack, seemed like they were getting more pressure on Schaub than what the Texans were able to do against the Bears offensive line.

 

Also, the Texans run game is based off of Foster's ability to set up defenders so he can cut back to the inside, which in the first half, killed the Bears, until they adjusted to it as the game went on. It's a "one cut and go" style.

 

So to extrapolate, in your world, if a DB falls on his face in the mud, and the WR runs by him for a TD, the WR is the guy who played great that day?

 

I fully realize Foster's style. The 1-cut is still almost exclusively downhill, and doesn't rely upon drastic changes in direction. He runs towards a spot, looks for the color change, and goes towards whichever of the two primary options are there. If he hits one going full speed, big gains follow. Why Tice didn't realize this and put in Bush for a similar style of running is anyone's guess.

[Bears4Ever_34]

So to extrapolate, in your world, if a DB falls on his face in the mud, and the WR runs by him for a TD, the WR is the guy who played great that day?

 

I fully realize Foster's style. The 1-cut is still almost exclusively downhill, and doesn't rely upon drastic changes in direction. He runs towards a spot, looks for the color change, and goes towards whichever of the two primary options are there. If he hits one going full speed, big gains follow. Why Tice didn't realize this and put in Bush for a similar style of running is anyone's guess.

 

You guys are the ones playing the game. According to the both of you, if you're playing on a wet, rainy field, even if the offensive line allows zero sacks and very little, if any, pressures on the quarterback for an entire game, the performance automatically can't be considered anything more than average for that very reason. It doesn't count, is essentially what you're saying. It seems to me that you're just looking for reasons to take credit away from a very solid performance.

 

And to answer your question, I don't think in those terms because I don't consider using weather and conditions as part of a good argument, in relation to performance on the field. Both teams play on the same surface. Things happen. A receiver could slip at any moment, and so could a defensive player. I'm just not going to sit here and say, "so and so's performance wasn't as good as it looked because of what 'could have' happened, had the game been played in different conditions. I don't view that as appropriate because you can't factually prove it.

 

Now, if you would ask me, do I think you can really take anything away from a game like this moving forward? I would say, I don't know. If anything, it could be a confidence booster for a guy like Carimi, who has struggled mightily this season, blocking people. But as we all know, this line is one of the more, if not thee most inconsistent lines in the NFL. Nobody goes from having really good games to miserably embarrassing performances like the Bears. As I mentioned, I would not be surprised to see them give up 5 sacks on MNF next week, but atleast for Sunday's game, I can't find a legitimate reason for criticizing them for their performance. I was definitely not expecting a defense, such as the Texans, to be shut down completely from getting to the quarterback the way they were, and on the flipside, I was just as impressed with how the Bears defensive line at least made it difficult for Schaub to survey the field the way he normally does. Peppers was an animal.

[jason]

You guys are the ones playing the game. According to the both of you, if you're playing on a wet, rainy field, even if the offensive line allows zero sacks and very little, if any, pressures on the quarterback for an entire game, the performance automatically can't be considered anything more than average for that very reason. It doesn't count, is essentially what you're saying. It seems to me that you're just looking for reasons to take credit away from a very solid performance.

 

And to answer your question, I don't think in those terms because I don't consider using weather and conditions as part of a good argument, in relation to performance on the field. Both teams play on the same surface. Things happen. A receiver could slip at any moment, and so could a defensive player. I'm just not going to sit here and say, "so and so's performance wasn't as good as it looked because of what 'could have' happened, had the game been played in different conditions. I don't view that as appropriate because you can't factually prove it.

 

Now, if you would ask me, do I think you can really take anything away from a game like this moving forward? I would say, I don't know. If anything, it could be a confidence booster for a guy like Carimi, who has struggled mightily this season, blocking people. But as we all know, this line is one of the more, if not thee most inconsistent lines in the NFL. Nobody goes from having really good games to miserably embarrassing performances like the Bears. As I mentioned, I would not be surprised to see them give up 5 sacks on MNF next week, but atleast for Sunday's game, I can't find a legitimate reason for criticizing them for their performance. I was definitely not expecting a defense, such as the Texans, to be shut down completely from getting to the quarterback the way they were, and on the flipside, I was just as impressed with how the Bears defensive line at least made it difficult for Schaub to survey the field the way he normally does. Peppers was an animal.

 

Try scrolling up. I posted:

 

Run-blocking was very bad.

Pass-blocking was good.

 

But it sure as hell wasn't excellent. There were flaws. And there were advantages provided by the conditions.

 

As for proving what would have happened on a dry field, sure, you can't. I've always backed up the "you can't prove a hypothetical"-stance because of how we all debate draft picks on this board. Having said that, you also can't ignore what positions typically have advantages on a sloppy field. This is something that has been corroborated in the entire football playing world. A sloppy field provides a distinct advantage to a slower, bigger OL when matched up against a smaller, quicker DL because the speed and change of direction is minimized.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Yeah, and in the same post you also stated,

"And the pass blocking was good more because of the same slippery surface, and less because of their stellar performance"

which again, is an incredibly asinine thing to say because you don't know that, you are just assuming. It's a bad argument. I honestly don't know where you get off saying the pass protection was only good but not great.

[jason]

Yeah, and in the same post you also stated,

which again, is an incredibly asinine thing to say because you don't know that, you are just assuming. It's a bad argument. I honestly don't know where you get off saying the pass protection was only good but not great.

 

Seeing as how:

A-I've played football

B-I've played football in the mud

C-I understand the difference between offense and defense

D-I understand how a slippery surface affects offense and defense

 

I don't think it's all that asinine. The OL gets a tremendous advantage over the DL on a slippery field.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Is "E" that you are also Nostradamus?

 

We all know that's not the argument. You said the advantage is the reason for why they only played average, ignoring what they actually did on the field, and how they shut down one of the better defenses in football. Schaub also didn't have nearly the time as the other two QB's, which I thought was impossible, because they were playing on mud.

 

I don't have a problem with saying their was an advantage (for Both teams), but don't short them for their actual performance. The pass protection couldn't have that much better, minus the two penalties on Rachal. It wasn't flawless, but it was far from average. Matter of fact, If that was average, I'd like to see what constitutes above average and beyond. Should the quarterback have 6 seconds to throw? 7? What about 8?

[jason]

Is "E" that you are also Nostradamus?

 

We all know that's not the argument. You said the advantage is the reason for why they only played average, ignoring what they actually did on the field, and how they shut down one of the better defenses in football. Schaub also didn't have nearly the time as the other two QB's, which I thought was impossible, because they were playing on mud.

 

I don't have a problem with saying their was an advantage (for Both teams), but don't short them for their actual performance. The pass protection couldn't have that much better, minus the two penalties on Rachal. It wasn't flawless, but it was far from average. Matter of fact, If that was average, I'd like to see what constitutes above average and beyond. Should the quarterback have 6 seconds to throw? 7? What about 8?

 

That defense just had the Jags explode on them. The Jags! They've been overrated, and the Bears should have done more against them.