Week 7 Vikings @ Bears Noon CST FOX

[jersey cubs fan]

 

The last game thread was littered with off topic discussion that had to be weeded through to find actual game discussion.

 

I don't really think that's asking too much. But, if you don't like it, take it up with an Admin.

 

One particular fan who was excited about his team winning caught flak from at first a moderator when others piled up on him. His comments were innocuous in a game thread talking about a game that his team had won. He was correct when he was saying that he was cheering because his team won, NOT because the Bears lost. It seemed like the perpetrators of that issue with wading through garbage posts come from the Bears fans (and as I said, a moderator on this board got it started, and I have a ton of respect for Raisin).

 

That said, I never received a response to my inquiry in the other thread about what "proper etiquette" would be in a Bears/Packers game thread considering there are a few handfuls of big Packers fans on this board.

 

I had no problem with any of his posts during the game or even the first celebratory post but 2 celebration posts in a span of 10 posts in the thread seemed like overkill (and it appears as though I wasn't the only one to think that; but if a lot of you think otherwise, fair enough...).

this will probably be my last post about it, but all i did was make two celebratory posts after an unbelievable win, then i left. When I came back, about 10 people complained about it (which seemed like overkill to me). So, I defended myself

 

 

:bye:

[BigbadB]

One particular fan who was excited about his team winning caught flak from at first a moderator when others piled up on him. His comments were innocuous in a game thread talking about a game that his team had won. He was correct when he was saying that he was cheering because his team won, NOT because the Bears lost. It seemed like the perpetrators of that issue with wading through garbage posts come from the Bears fans (and as I said, a moderator on this board got it started, and I have a ton of respect for Raisin).

 

That said, I never received a response to my inquiry in the other thread about what "proper etiquette" would be in a Bears/Packers game thread considering there are a few handfuls of big Packers fans on this board.

 

I can see where you get the impression that I singled out Vanilla since I actually quoted him. I acknowledge that Vanilla was not the only one to go off topic.

 

The debate of who is or isn't allowed to post in game threads is not in game discussion. Start a new thread if you want to discuss that. I don't care who posts in the game threads, I just don't want to weed through a bunch of off topic stuff in a game thread.

[Soul]

Actually, while Minnesota is stout against the run, I don't think this Bears offense needs to rely on the run to move the ball. And from what I've seen Minny's pass defense is suspect.

 

The pass defense has been better than it was last year although I'm not sure why. The pass rush hasn't been much better and we're still without Madieu Williams (and have a rookie in his place) so Sharper is having to do too much and is in the twilight. Winfield is having maybe his best year ever and Griffin has been improved at the other corner.

 

They're 6th in the NFC in passing yards allowed and have faced Rodgers, Manning, Brees and Delhomme. In 6 games they've allowed only 4 passing touchdowns to 4 interceptions. Only Brees and Manning went over 200 yards.

This defense won't be as good against the run as they have been because Allen isn't as good as Udeze at stopping the run at DE and E.J. Henderson is a huge loss against the run at MLB.

 

The defense has been outstanding considering the schedule and some of the spots they've been put in with an inconsistent offense and terrible coverage units on special teams. They'll either have to kick out of bounds all day or Hester will have at least one touchdown.

 

I think the defense will be fine but am most worried about special teams, our o-line and continued red zone inefficiency and turnovers at the most inopportune times.

 

They're 15th overall, which is about middle of the pack in pass defense. But look closer -- they're only 18th in ypc (6.97).

 

Unfortunately for us, the Bears can't defend the pass -- we're way at the bottom of the league. But even so, the Bears ypc is better than Minny's.

 

In run D, Minny is stellar, 4th in the league and only 3.0 ypc.

 

I'm sticking with the pass game being our better opportunity.

[BigbadB]

Orton hasnt gotten booed because he hasnt laid those ginourmous turds like Rex would. Right now i would be surprised if Orton lays one of those huge turds this year. There have been times where the O has had trouble moving the ball but they got out of the funk, and overall Orton has made some good decisions with ball, where and where not to go with it. He has been steady.

 

There is a big difference between Rex and Orton. Orton has pocket presence. Rex always looked like a deer caught in the headlights on pass plays, despite being semi-mobile. Rex also has tunnel vision. He is unable to read defenses or the field. For awhile, I almost thought the coaching staff developed pass plays for him that limited his options to 1 single receiver downfield and 1 safety valve (usually a RB out of the backfield). But, after watching Orton, I'm convinced that Rex is just that bad.

 

In defense of Rex, an offensive line that is not good at giving your receivers time to run their routes can do that to a guy.

 

Orton doesn't act like he's afraid to get hit, which is vital to the success of your passing game. I hope he continues to impress.

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

I can't believe this hasn't got more attention. Forget the squib kickoff, this is even more dumb.

 

 

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1219223,CST-SPT-bear14.article

 

''That's the coverage we like to run in that situation,'' Smith said. ''We didn't execute it exactly the way we need to, like we didn't do a lot of things exactly how we needed. But a lot of things go into losing the game. You don't all of a sudden start changing some of the things you believe in. The cover-2's been a good defense for a long time. It's not going anywhere

 

That is the coverage you would like to run in that situation? The situation Lovie, is that if you keep them in bounds the game is over. It doesn't matter where they are in bounds, game over you win. They could be in bounds @ midfield, at the 30, or at the 1 yard line. It doesn't matter, the game is over. The only thing that beats you is a sideline pass were the receiver can get out of bounds. So you guard the sticking sideline..bracket the damn reciever! Is this guy for real? I cannot believe the stupidiy of this coaching staff, specfically Lovie.

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

god that still steams me. How stupid. How freakin stupid. :twisted:

[UMFan83]

I can't believe this hasn't got more attention. Forget the squib kickoff, this is even more dumb.

 

 

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1219223,CST-SPT-bear14.article

 

''That's the coverage we like to run in that situation,'' Smith said. ''We didn't execute it exactly the way we need to, like we didn't do a lot of things exactly how we needed. But a lot of things go into losing the game. You don't all of a sudden start changing some of the things you believe in. The cover-2's been a good defense for a long time. It's not going anywhere

 

That is the coverage you would like to run in that situation? The situation Lovie, is that if you keep them in bounds the game is over. It doesn't matter where they are in bounds, game over you win. They could be in bounds @ midfield, at the 30, or at the 1 yard line. It doesn't matter, the game is over. The only thing that beats you is a sideline pass were the receiver can get out of bounds. So you guard the sticking sideline..bracket the damn reciever! Is this guy for real? I cannot believe the stupidiy of this coaching staff, specfically Lovie.

 

Not that the TO would have been called in time, but technically Atlanta had 2 timeouts left. Theoretically they could have passed inbounds and gotten the TO.

[Soul]

The cover-2 has pretty much been solved by the league. To me it's a situational-only defense now, not a primary defensive set.

 

In my mind Lovie's continued support of this as a primary defense shows his stubborness and lack of imagination.

[BigbadB]

I can't believe this hasn't got more attention. Forget the squib kickoff, this is even more dumb.

 

 

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1219223,CST-SPT-bear14.article

 

''That's the coverage we like to run in that situation,'' Smith said. ''We didn't execute it exactly the way we need to, like we didn't do a lot of things exactly how we needed. But a lot of things go into losing the game. You don't all of a sudden start changing some of the things you believe in. The cover-2's been a good defense for a long time. It's not going anywhere

 

That is the coverage you would like to run in that situation? The situation Lovie, is that if you keep them in bounds the game is over. It doesn't matter where they are in bounds, game over you win. They could be in bounds @ midfield, at the 30, or at the 1 yard line. It doesn't matter, the game is over. The only thing that beats you is a sideline pass were the receiver can get out of bounds. So you guard the sticking sideline..bracket the damn reciever! Is this guy for real? I cannot believe the stupidiy of this coaching staff, specfically Lovie.

 

Not that the TO would have been called in time, but technically Atlanta had 2 timeouts left. Theoretically they could have passed inbounds and gotten the TO.

 

I don't think that this is possible. Running out of bounds is an automatic clock stoppage. A pass play for 30 yards downfield has officials all over the place. After the catch, there needs to be a tackle or a touch, and then an official would need to see a player calling for a TO. That is much more slowly developing than an automatic clock stoppage by going out of bounds.

[Butterscup1679666578]

The cover-2 has pretty much been solved by the league. To me it's a situational-only defense now, not a primary defensive set.

 

In my mind Lovie's continued support of this as a primary defense shows his stubborness and lack of imagination.

 

Dusty is to plate patience as Lovie is to Cover 2.

[Soul]

I can't believe this hasn't got more attention. Forget the squib kickoff, this is even more dumb.

 

 

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1219223,CST-SPT-bear14.article

 

''That's the coverage we like to run in that situation,'' Smith said. ''We didn't execute it exactly the way we need to, like we didn't do a lot of things exactly how we needed. But a lot of things go into losing the game. You don't all of a sudden start changing some of the things you believe in. The cover-2's been a good defense for a long time. It's not going anywhere

 

That is the coverage you would like to run in that situation? The situation Lovie, is that if you keep them in bounds the game is over. It doesn't matter where they are in bounds, game over you win. They could be in bounds @ midfield, at the 30, or at the 1 yard line. It doesn't matter, the game is over. The only thing that beats you is a sideline pass were the receiver can get out of bounds. So you guard the sticking sideline..bracket the damn reciever! Is this guy for real? I cannot believe the stupidiy of this coaching staff, specfically Lovie.

 

Not that the TO would have been called in time, but technically Atlanta had 2 timeouts left. Theoretically they could have passed inbounds and gotten the TO.

 

I don't think that this is possible. Running out of bounds is an automatic clock stoppage. A pass play for 30 yards downfield has officials all over the place. After the catch, there needs to be a tackle or a touch, and then an official would need to see a player calling for a TO. That is much more slowly developing than an automatic clock stoppage by going out of bounds.

 

Probably. But you don't know the exact timing going into the play. I think it's fair to say that the Bears couldn't totally abandon all coverage of the inside route. But biting on the short route -- that one I still cannot understand.

[BigbadB]

I can't believe this hasn't got more attention. Forget the squib kickoff, this is even more dumb.

 

 

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1219223,CST-SPT-bear14.article

 

''That's the coverage we like to run in that situation,'' Smith said. ''We didn't execute it exactly the way we need to, like we didn't do a lot of things exactly how we needed. But a lot of things go into losing the game. You don't all of a sudden start changing some of the things you believe in. The cover-2's been a good defense for a long time. It's not going anywhere

 

That is the coverage you would like to run in that situation? The situation Lovie, is that if you keep them in bounds the game is over. It doesn't matter where they are in bounds, game over you win. They could be in bounds @ midfield, at the 30, or at the 1 yard line. It doesn't matter, the game is over. The only thing that beats you is a sideline pass were the receiver can get out of bounds. So you guard the sticking sideline..bracket the damn reciever! Is this guy for real? I cannot believe the stupidiy of this coaching staff, specfically Lovie.

 

Not that the TO would have been called in time, but technically Atlanta had 2 timeouts left. Theoretically they could have passed inbounds and gotten the TO.

 

I don't think that this is possible. Running out of bounds is an automatic clock stoppage. A pass play for 30 yards downfield has officials all over the place. After the catch, there needs to be a tackle or a touch, and then an official would need to see a player calling for a TO. That is much more slowly developing than an automatic clock stoppage by going out of bounds.

 

Probably. But you don't know the exact timing going into the play. I think it's fair to say that the Bears couldn't totally abandon all coverage of the inside route. But biting on the short route -- that one I still cannot understand.

 

On that play, the Bears should have had all 11 guys in protective coverage. They should have had 3 linebackers up at the line and then on the snap drop back into pass coverage. Everybody else should have been guarding the lines and protecting against the Hail Mary.

 

Guys I would consider to put into protective coverage are Wolfe and Hester.

[jersey cubs fan]

The cover-2 has pretty much been solved by the league. To me it's a situational-only defense now, not a primary defensive set.

 

In my mind Lovie's continued support of this as a primary defense shows his stubborness and lack of imagination.

 

Dusty is to plate patience as Lovie is to Cover 2.

 

Except it's the complete opposite.

[Soul]

I can't believe this hasn't got more attention. Forget the squib kickoff, this is even more dumb.

 

 

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/1219223,CST-SPT-bear14.article

 

''That's the coverage we like to run in that situation,'' Smith said. ''We didn't execute it exactly the way we need to, like we didn't do a lot of things exactly how we needed. But a lot of things go into losing the game. You don't all of a sudden start changing some of the things you believe in. The cover-2's been a good defense for a long time. It's not going anywhere

 

That is the coverage you would like to run in that situation? The situation Lovie, is that if you keep them in bounds the game is over. It doesn't matter where they are in bounds, game over you win. They could be in bounds @ midfield, at the 30, or at the 1 yard line. It doesn't matter, the game is over. The only thing that beats you is a sideline pass were the receiver can get out of bounds. So you guard the sticking sideline..bracket the damn reciever! Is this guy for real? I cannot believe the stupidiy of this coaching staff, specfically Lovie.

 

Not that the TO would have been called in time, but technically Atlanta had 2 timeouts left. Theoretically they could have passed inbounds and gotten the TO.

 

I don't think that this is possible. Running out of bounds is an automatic clock stoppage. A pass play for 30 yards downfield has officials all over the place. After the catch, there needs to be a tackle or a touch, and then an official would need to see a player calling for a TO. That is much more slowly developing than an automatic clock stoppage by going out of bounds.

 

Probably. But you don't know the exact timing going into the play. I think it's fair to say that the Bears couldn't totally abandon all coverage of the inside route. But biting on the short route -- that one I still cannot understand.

 

On that play, the Bears should have had all 11 guys in protective coverage. They should have had 3 linebackers up at the line and then on the snap drop back into pass coverage. Everybody else should have been guarding the lines and protecting against the Hail Mary.

 

Guys I would consider to put into protective coverage are Wolfe and Hester.

 

I know. If you just put your DBs back and ignore the short routes, it's over.

 

This one's really hanging with me. I'm having trouble getting over it.

[BigbadB]

Might have been a different outcome if Vasher and Peanut were in there.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

Terrance Metcalf was suspended 4 games for violating the leagues anabolic steroids policy. Not much depth at LG now.

 

Buenning and St.Clair when Williams comes back.

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

Might have been a different outcome if Vasher and Peanut were in there.

Possibly, but then again this isn't like you are asking a backup to shut down a receiver completly. You are asking him to defend a very, very, small portion of the field. That play should not have happened regardless of the personal. It was a complelty brain fart.

[hawkeyecub]

The cover-2 has pretty much been solved by the league. To me it's a situational-only defense now, not a primary defensive set.

 

In my mind Lovie's continued support of this as a primary defense shows his stubborness and lack of imagination.

 

The cover-2 hasn't been solved. Well I guess you could say it has been solved because just like any other defense (zone or man or variations) everyone knows in theory how to beat it and everyone always has. Like all coverages it has it's strengths and weaknesses that are known.

 

It's been around for a long time and will continue to be around for a long time (like cover 3, cover 4, cover 8, etc) because it's a sound defense. There is no perfect defense. The cover 2 is a good base defense which is dependent on personnel, execution and mixing things up at times.

[Soul]

The cover-2 has pretty much been solved by the league. To me it's a situational-only defense now, not a primary defensive set.

 

In my mind Lovie's continued support of this as a primary defense shows his stubborness and lack of imagination.

 

The cover-2 hasn't been solved. Well I guess you could say it has been solved because just like any other defense (zone or man or variations) everyone knows in theory how to beat it and everyone always has. Like all coverages it has it's strengths and weaknesses that are known.

 

It's been around for a long time and will continue to be around for a long time (like cover 3, cover 4, cover 8, etc) because it's a sound defense. There is no perfect defense. The cover 2 is a good base defense which is dependent on personnel, execution and mixing things up at times.

 

So it hasn't been solved. But it has!!

 

No, I'm just kidding. It definitely seems to me that teams who play us are ready for it more often. Maybe it's more because we suck on pass D this year. It wasn't as effective last year either though.

 

I don't know. I don't like the defense, it's not very aggressive, it doesn't seem to attack the opposing team. I prefer a pressure scheme to cover-2. Creative blitzes, alternate formations, LBs moving in & out. We've been trying that more this year -- but against Atlanta it seemed that we simply abandoned it.

[Balsa]

The cover 2 isn't working mainly because the front four haven't been getting pressure since we thumped the Colts.

 

You can't win without pressuring the QB.

[rawaction]

The cover 2 isn't working mainly because the front four haven't been getting pressure since we thumped the Colts.

 

You can't win without pressuring the QB.

 

This.

[rawaction]

Fun injury report this week for the Bears.

 

Booker, Lloyd, DManning, and Tillman all missed practice. (Forte also skipped practice to rest).

 

Rashied, Hamilton, Harris, Harrison, Idonije, Maynard, McBride, Roach, and Vasher only had limited practice.

 

Kinda sad when Mike Brown's the healthiest DB on the roster. You gotta wonder if the Bears just skipped special teams and defensive passing game practice.

[jersey cubs fan]

Fun injury report this week for the Bears.

 

Booker, Lloyd, DManning, and Tillman all missed practice. (Forte also skipped practice to rest).

 

Rashied, Hamilton, Harris, Harrison, Idonije, Maynard, McBride, Roach, and Vasher only had limited practice.

 

Kinda sad when Mike Brown's the healthiest DB on the roster. You gotta wonder if the Bears just skipped special teams and defensive passing game practice.

 

Hello bye week. Please pull this one out and then rest up.

[UMFan83]

The cover 2 isn't working mainly because the front four haven't been getting pressure since we thumped the Colts.

 

You can't win without pressuring the QB.

 

That's absolutely true. The front 4 is pretty vital. Everyone knows there is an exposed pocket between the CB and the S in the Cover 2. Allow the QB time to find that pocket and urine trouble (thanks Moises).

[Balsa]

Vasher is expected to play this week, and Tillman is Questionable.

 

We also promoted rookie DB Zachary Bowman from the practice squad.

 

I fully expect Berrian to burn our DBs, my only hope is that we get to Frerotte early and often enough to rush him away from the deep ball. It is encouraging that the Lions sacked him five times last week however.