madlithuanian Posted December 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 I just get the distinct feeling Tice is in over his head... Cutler will handle anything... With Manning, he pretty much does what he wants. Pretty sure that Fox lets him do as he sees needed. And I think you're right that Cutler could adapt. He is a smart kid. And really all that would happen is Toub could add more trickery to the playbook. Sort of like how Washington was doing with NYG last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'd just love to see a few unorthodox formations every once in a while. Teams get caught off guard against unbalanced lines, the pistol formation, the T-Formation etc.. You don't have to have a speedy mobile quarterback like RGIII to run out of those sets either. You just can't run the option off of it. Teams like the Bills, Lions, and Chiefs use the pistol from time to time as a change of pace. You have to keep your opponents guessing at all times. If they don't know what you're going to do out of a certain set, you have the advantage. That's partly why I think running some of these plays would do some good to a team that constantly struggles to make plays offensively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Not sure your examples help the point... It was partially sarcastic. I know neither of those guys was fond of running the ball, but whenever someone comes into Chicago with an outside-the-box mentality on offense, the majority of the fan base hates the guy. Hence, Crowton and Martz were not liked by most. But both of those guys have forgotten more offensive football knowledge than Tice will ever have. But as long as Tice is relatively "three yards and a cloud of dust" you won't hear much about getting rid of him. Small rumblings is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'd just love to see a few unorthodox formations every once in a while. Teams get caught off guard against unbalanced lines, the pistol formation, the T-Formation etc.. You don't have to have a speedy mobile quarterback like RGIII to run out of those sets either. You just can't run the option off of it. Teams like the Bills, Lions, and Chiefs use the pistol from time to time as a change of pace. You have to keep your opponents guessing at all times. If they don't know what you're going to do out of a certain set, you have the advantage. That's partly why I think running some of these plays would do some good to a team that constantly struggles to make plays offensively. 100% agree. Great post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I follow. For me, I don't care if it's inside outside or in another dimension of the box...I just want a good OC. We've had all 3, and none good as of late. It's time for just plain old "good"... It was partially sarcastic. I know neither of those guys was fond of running the ball, but whenever someone comes into Chicago with an outside-the-box mentality on offense, the majority of the fan base hates the guy. Hence, Crowton and Martz were not liked by most. But both of those guys have forgotten more offensive football knowledge than Tice will ever have. But as long as Tice is relatively "three yards and a cloud of dust" you won't hear much about getting rid of him. Small rumblings is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 That made me laugh out loud. The run game was a bust. Forte is not good between the tackles, and it showed tonight. He's actually a better pass catcher than he is a runner for his position, yet he's been completely ignored in that area all season. They did get him a TD today via the pass, but that's the only time I can recall him catching a pass as a receiver. Our screen game isn't very good either. Losing Lance Louis especially hurts in this area because of his athleticism to get out and block in space. The defense couldn't get off the field. Russell Wilson killed them with his legs on 3rd downs. Seemed like he was always picking up 1st downs. Idonije had one of his worst games. I don't know what the hell he was seeing out there today-- cutting inside on an obvious roll out situation that wound up being a crucial 3rd down pickup late in the game. He's so damn slow. Can't wait for someone else to take his place next year. I didn't think the play calling offensively was that bad today, to be honest. I liked it, for the most part. I thought Tice did a good job calling a safe gameplan with the offensive line, and getting him outside the pocket at times. I only wish he would start using Forte more as a receiver. The play calling was very good today. Bears had a lot of quick passes and took advantage of them. They did leave points on the board but that was due to execution (dropped TD by a concussed Bennett and not getting the job down on 4th and short). And thats a 4th down I tip my cap to the Bears for going for it. They have a back that was signed for short yardage and he has been excellent all year in it. From a statistical perspective, its a no brainer to go for it and the Bears just didn't execute that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 The play calling was very good today. Bears had a lot of quick passes and took advantage of them. They did leave points on the board but that was due to execution (dropped TD by a concussed Bennett and not getting the job down on 4th and short). And thats a 4th down I tip my cap to the Bears for going for it. They have a back that was signed for short yardage and he has been excellent all year in it. From a statistical perspective, its a no brainer to go for it and the Bears just didn't execute that time. Huh? From a statistical perspective, it made MUCH more sense to go for the FG for the following reasons: 1-The Bears are 20th in the league in offensive scoring 2-The Bears D is not on a scoring tear any more 3-The Seahawks O is 16th in the league in offensive scoring 4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards 5-The FG would have made it 10-0, and given the Bears momentum 6-The ensuing kickoff would likely have given the Seahawks a touchback without momentum You take the points when you can get them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Huh? From a statistical perspective, it made MUCH more sense to go for the FG for the following reasons: 1-The Bears are 20th in the league in offensive scoring 2-The Bears D is not on a scoring tear any more 3-The Seahawks O is 16th in the league in offensive scoring 4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards 5-The FG would have made it 10-0, and given the Bears momentum 6-The ensuing kickoff would likely have given the Seahawks a touchback without momentum You take the points when you can get them. X2... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 And thats a 4th down I tip my cap to the Bears for going for it. They have a back that was signed for short yardage and he has been excellent all year in it. From a statistical perspective, its a no brainer to go for it and the Bears just didn't execute that time. I have to say "X2" to this. The advocate in me says "what if" Gould had missed? People would have asked why didnt the team run it? It was that close to being a first down. In my mind, the statistics of not making it vs making it were equal when comparing Gould making it and Bush making the short yards. It just so happens that Bush didn't. so its easier to ask..."why didn't we kick the FG"? The momentum could have been monumentally stronger had Bush made that run. It would have reinforced the O-line confidence. Of which we know is under heavy scrutiny. And with that successful run, the team probably (not suredly) would have eventually gotten a TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 Huh? From a statistical perspective, it made MUCH more sense to go for the FG for the following reasons: 1-The Bears are 20th in the league in offensive scoring 2-The Bears D is not on a scoring tear any more 3-The Seahawks O is 16th in the league in offensive scoring 4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards 5-The FG would have made it 10-0, and given the Bears momentum 6-The ensuing kickoff would likely have given the Seahawks a touchback without momentum You take the points when you can get them. Coming from the guy who always wants to go for the kill, I find it shocking you weren't for the move and aren't aware of all the saber stats out there which completely unequivocally call this a no-brainer.. Staticians have shown that 4th and short early in the game is a complete and utter statistical no brainer of a move. Chip Kelly uses it with regularity at Oregon and Belliceck uses it often in New England. They've seen the data and anlaysis and know that not going for it leaves more points on the table then kicking the field goal in that situation. Nother story if it is final few minutes of the game or the FG ties it, but at that point in the game, that was absolutely the right decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 Waht is GOuld missed? Really? That's like asking what if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow? It's not difficult. You take points against good D's, especially when your O Line has had recent struggles doing anything right... I have to say "X2" to this. The advocate in me says "what if" Gould had missed? People would have asked why didnt the team run it? It was that close to being a first down. In my mind, the statistics of not making it vs making it were equal when comparing Gould making it and Bush making the short yards. It just so happens that Bush didn't. so its easier to ask..."why didn't we kick the FG"? The momentum could have been monumentally stronger had Bush made that run. It would have reinforced the O-line confidence. Of which we know is under heavy scrutiny. And with that successful run, the team probably (not suredly) would have eventually gotten a TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 Exactly... Huh? From a statistical perspective, it made MUCH more sense to go for the FG for the following reasons: 1-The Bears are 20th in the league in offensive scoring 2-The Bears D is not on a scoring tear any more 3-The Seahawks O is 16th in the league in offensive scoring 4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards 5-The FG would have made it 10-0, and given the Bears momentum 6-The ensuing kickoff would likely have given the Seahawks a touchback without momentum You take the points when you can get them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 Waht is GOuld missed? Really? That's like asking what if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow? It's not difficult. You take points against good D's, especially when your O Line has had recent struggles doing anything right... "4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards" 4 misses are 4 misses. And "fairly automatic" is not completely automatic. (Gould did miss one in the 30-39 range just against Minn and made 5/7 this year in that category). And just for reference, there are places up here where the sun doesn't rise some days. Especially this time of year. Bush has not averaged less than 1.6 yds a carry this year. That was more than enough for him to convert the 4th. It just didnt happen...this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 "4-Robbie Gould is 21-25 for the year and fairly automatic from 32 yards" 4 misses are 4 misses. And "fairly automatic" is not completely automatic. (Gould did miss one in the 30-39 range just against Minn and made 5/7 this year in that category). And just for reference, there are places up here where the sun doesn't rise some days. Especially this time of year. Bush has not averaged less than 1.6 yds a carry this year. That was more than enough for him to convert the 4th. It just didnt happen...this time. Your analysis is flawed. You are simply starting the odds are similar between making the FG and converting the 1ST down. What you forgot is the odds to score points after the conversion are still there. Belichick is the only pro coach I know that subscribes to your theory. He has Tom Brady. When you dont take the points, you're kicking your defense in the nuts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 The play calling was very good today. Bears had a lot of quick passes and took advantage of them. They did leave points on the board but that was due to execution (dropped TD by a concussed Bennett and not getting the job down on 4th and short). And thats a 4th down I tip my cap to the Bears for going for it. They have a back that was signed for short yardage and he has been excellent all year in it. From a statistical perspective, its a no brainer to go for it and the Bears just didn't execute that time. With an average offense I might agree but with two new OG, and bringing in a 3rd new guy (Brown), who was a UDFA and had never seen game action, is not an Oline I have confidence in on a 4th and short situation. At this point in the game we hadn't done much in the running game and were only moving the ball passing. What did Lovie see that made him feel these guys could push the Seahawks for a yard? Statistics as cited in another post about league-wide success rates and more points scored on balance are not relevant without context. For that stat to be valid it would have to include all populations of offense versus all defenses (good to bad versus bad to good). More simply put: Do you really believe the AZ Cardinals would have the same success rate against the Steelers D on 4th and 1? How many times would they try that from the 10 yd line versus taking a FG? Then on the other side of the coin is New England with the leagues best offense going for it. Their team is not concerned that they'll struggle to make points during a game like we are. They can go for the quick kill because they know, and you know, you have to keep up with their offense all game long. Even so, does Belicik go for it against the Ravens? Or does he go for it against the Saints who have the worst D in the league? At the game I was surprised we were going for it. Mostly I just didn't like the opportunity for a momentum swing it provided their team. You always have to consider the downside risk when gambling and I felt and still do that having two scoring drives early in the game went in our favor far more than any confidence gain our Oline would get from Lovie supporting them on a 4th and short even if they failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 Coming from the guy who always wants to go for the kill, I find it shocking you weren't for the move and aren't aware of all the saber stats out there which completely unequivocally call this a no-brainer.. Staticians have shown that 4th and short early in the game is a complete and utter statistical no brainer of a move. Chip Kelly uses it with regularity at Oregon and Belliceck uses it often in New England. They've seen the data and anlaysis and know that not going for it leaves more points on the table then kicking the field goal in that situation. Nother story if it is final few minutes of the game or the FG ties it, but at that point in the game, that was absolutely the right decision. First, I've read some of the advanced stats on this subject. It's interesting. Unfortunately, however, the stats can't be applied necessarily on a team-by-team basis. With the Bears having such a bad OL, such a bad scoring offense, with injuries mounting on defense (which signaled the likelihood of the opponent scoring more), you go to the old adage of taking points when you can. There is a big difference between a well-run organization like Oregon and NE doing something, and what the Bears should do on offense. The former has the coaching and players to execute with great success. The latter does not. As for going for the kill, you're right. That's what I almost always want. But I don't think you understand what I mean when I say that. I mean, "don't change an aggressive strategy that is working just because you have a lead." That's what Lovie does. I do not mean, "take extra chances." Otherwise I'd advocate for a bomb on every pass play, which we can all agree would make little sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 Thanks you...you said just what I wanted to, but more eloquently. Your analysis is flawed. You are simply starting the odds are similar between making the FG and converting the 1ST down. What you forgot is the odds to score points after the conversion are still there. Belichick is the only pro coach I know that subscribes to your theory. He has Tom Brady. When you dont take the points, you're kicking your defense in the nuts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Your analysis is flawed. You are simply starting the odds are similar between making the FG and converting the 1ST down. What you forgot is the odds to score points after the conversion are still there. Belichick is the only pro coach I know that subscribes to your theory. He has Tom Brady. When you dont take the points, you're kicking your defense in the nuts... And you can safely say that because the 4th and short attempt did not succeed. Had it succeeded, would we be having this discussion? And as I've asked, had Robbie kicked the FG and missed, would we be collectively asking why didn't we just run it? We have Michael Bush explicitly for times like that. The odds that Robbie missing a FG can simply be equated to Bush not making a short yard gain. The point you bring up about "scoring points after the conversion" after the fact is interesting because, if I understand correctly, the odds are even better. Should the team still not be able to convert another series of downs, they are that much closer to the end of the field and can try to do the FG. Let me ask this, what if during that original fourth and short play Toub went to Lovie (or however that works) and said "remember that trick play we did a few weeks ago with Podlesh? Maybe we should try that again." And the end goal was to just get the yardage, and it worked? Would people be ok with it? What if it didn't work? Something tells me we'd be having a similar discussion. With regards to having a player like Brady for the Patriots, with his history and success and converting 4th down plays. I can simply retort with (as I said before) we DO have a player like Brady in Bush....who usually succeeds in short yardage plays. And as I've said before, he didn't...this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 And you can safely say that because the 4th and short attempt did not succeed. Had it succeeded, would we be having this discussion? And as I've asked, had Robbie kicked the FG and missed, would we be collectively asking why didn't we just run it? We have Michael Bush explicitly for times like that. The odds that Robbie missing a FG can simply be equated to Bush not making a short yard gain. The point you bring up about "scoring points after the conversion" after the fact is interesting because, if I understand correctly, the odds are even better. Should the team still not be able to convert another series of downs, they are that much closer to the end of the field and can try to do the FG. Let me ask this, what if during that original fourth and short play Toub went to Lovie (or however that works) and said "remember that trick play we did a few weeks ago with Podlesh? Maybe we should try that again." And the end goal was to just get the yardage, and it worked? Would people be ok with it? What if it didn't work? Something tells me we'd be having a similar discussion. With regards to having a player like Brady for the Patriots, with his history and success and converting 4th down plays. I can simply retort with (as I said before) we DO have a player like Brady in Bush....who usually succeeds in short yardage plays. And as I've said before, he didn't...this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Alaska, do you just realize you compared Michael Bush to Tom Brady in regard to how well they pick up first downs? Really? Wow... If you would have said Cutler, I wouldn't be in shock. In fact, I wonder if Brady has picked up more QB sneaks for 1sts on 4th than Bush has... And you can safely say that because the 4th and short attempt did not succeed. Had it succeeded, would we be having this discussion? And as I've asked, had Robbie kicked the FG and missed, would we be collectively asking why didn't we just run it? We have Michael Bush explicitly for times like that. The odds that Robbie missing a FG can simply be equated to Bush not making a short yard gain. The point you bring up about "scoring points after the conversion" after the fact is interesting because, if I understand correctly, the odds are even better. Should the team still not be able to convert another series of downs, they are that much closer to the end of the field and can try to do the FG. Let me ask this, what if during that original fourth and short play Toub went to Lovie (or however that works) and said "remember that trick play we did a few weeks ago with Podlesh? Maybe we should try that again." And the end goal was to just get the yardage, and it worked? Would people be ok with it? What if it didn't work? Something tells me we'd be having a similar discussion. With regards to having a player like Brady for the Patriots, with his history and success and converting 4th down plays. I can simply retort with (as I said before) we DO have a player like Brady in Bush....who usually succeeds in short yardage plays. And as I've said before, he didn't...this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Alaska, do you just realize you compared Michael Bush to Tom Brady in regard to how well they pick up first downs? Really? Wow... If you would have said Cutler, I wouldn't be in shock. In fact, I wonder if Brady has picked up more QB sneaks for 1sts on 4th than Bush has... Here it is, plain and simple. What was Michael Bush brought to Chicago for? And why? Then ask yourself, what has he done well at since coming to the team? That is the comparison I'm making. I realize that historically Brady has done it better for longer, and in no way am I comparing the two in overall skill set. Just that when it comes to making short yardage gains, Bush can hold his own. Don't read into it too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I understand that element... It just doesn't help your argument when you throw around those kinds of comparisons... Here it is, plain and simple. What was Michael Bush brought to Chicago for? And why? Then ask yourself, what has he done well at since coming to the team? That is the comparison I'm making. I realize that historically Brady has done it better for longer, and in no way am I comparing the two in overall skill set. Just that when it comes to making short yardage gains, Bush can hold his own. Don't read into it too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted December 8, 2012 Report Share Posted December 8, 2012 I understand that element... It just doesn't help your argument when you throw around those kinds of comparisons... In my defense, and not to be simply argumentative, I didn't start the comparison to Brady. It was presented as a comparison and I used it to illustrate why, in my opinion, it wasn't a fair comparison...not taken wholly. And rather I chose to compare specific aspects....or "elements". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted December 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2012 gtocha In my defense, and not to be simply argumentative, I didn't start the comparison to Brady. It was presented as a comparison and I used it to illustrate why, in my opinion, it wasn't a fair comparison...not taken wholly. And rather I chose to compare specific aspects....or "elements". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted December 8, 2012 Report Share Posted December 8, 2012 I fear with the injuries and difficulties on the O Line this year is probably not going to end well, but cannot fault Lovie and Co all that much. As much as I do not like his defensive system he seems to be a solid coach and has performed pretty well over the years all things considered. He has been a good face for the city. That being said, I hope that Emery will continue to address the O Line and pick us up some new blood. Urlacher seems to be finished and we will need some help at LB as well..... 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.