Week 3 - Chicago Bears at Seattle Seahawks, 3:05 PM FOX

[David]

Is Matt Forte not one of the top RBs in the NFC and NFL now after two games?

 

He was arguably not one of the top RBs before those two games.

 

 

He's solid at every facet of the game. Not necessarily saying he's elite at running the ball. 3.9 y/carry isn't good, but you have to consider the context and the crap offense he was in and the 8 man fronts he was facing. When he's as good as he is catching the football and in pass protection, I don't see how you wouldn't put him there.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is Matt Forte not one of the top RBs in the NFC and NFL now after two games?

 

He was arguably not one of the top RBs before those two games.

 

 

He's solid at every facet of the game. Not necessarily saying he's elite at running the ball. 3.9 y/carry isn't good, but you have to consider the context and the crap offense he was in and the 8 man fronts he was facing. When he's as good as he is catching the football and in pass protection, I don't see how you wouldn't put him there.

 

I didn't say he definitely wasn't, but there's a very good argument to say he's not among the best RBs in the conference let alone the league. I believe there are extenuating circumstances that explain some of his shortfalls, but the fact is the Bears have had several RBs have solid seasons since Neil Anderson and none of them have been top RBs in the league. Forte still has to do it. He's got a better line and a much better QB so there really isn't any excuse.

[Guest]

Is Matt Forte not one of the top RBs in the NFC and NFL now after two games?

 

He was arguably not one of the top RBs before those two games.

 

 

He's solid at every facet of the game. Not necessarily saying he's elite at running the ball. 3.9 y/carry isn't good, but you have to consider the context and the crap offense he was in and the 8 man fronts he was facing. When he's as good as he is catching the football and in pass protection, I don't see how you wouldn't put him there.

 

He is solid in every aspect of his job description. However, it's a pretty tall order to rank him in the top 2, especially when #1 is already taken by AP. There are still a lot of talented backs out there and you'd be setting yourself up for a huge argument if you posed that question to the rest of the league's fan bases.

[jersey cubs fan]

By the way, I need to get myself some free chorizo and eggs on Sunday.

[David]

By the way, I need to get myself some free chorizo and eggs on Sunday.

 

 

Where :shock:

[jersey cubs fan]

By the way, I need to get myself some free chorizo and eggs on Sunday.

 

 

Where :shock:

 

Wherever BBB secretly congregates for games.

[Banedon]

I think Cedric Benson is doing a great job showing that the Bears running game fails for more reasons than the RB. Whether it be coaching, the O-line, or both...

 

If there's a conclusion I've drawn about the Bears in the first two games this season, it's that Ron Turner is not a good NFL OC. He doesn't seem to know how to draw up plays that take advantage of his best players.

[David]

I think Cedric Benson is doing a great job showing that the Bears running game fails for more reasons than the RB. Whether it be coaching, the O-line, or both...

 

If there's a conclusion I've drawn about the Bears in the first two games this season, it's that Ron Turner is not a good NFL OC. He doesn't seem to know how to draw up plays that take advantage of his best players.

 

 

I didn't see anything wrong with the game plan vs. the Steelers. :confused:

 

 

Sure, there were times when I wish they would've been less conservative, like the 3rd and long draw and the final FG drive, but they attacked that blitz brilliantly, IMO.

[Banedon]

I think Cedric Benson is doing a great job showing that the Bears running game fails for more reasons than the RB. Whether it be coaching, the O-line, or both...

 

If there's a conclusion I've drawn about the Bears in the first two games this season, it's that Ron Turner is not a good NFL OC. He doesn't seem to know how to draw up plays that take advantage of his best players.

 

 

I didn't see anything wrong with the game plan vs. the Steelers. :confused:

 

 

Sure, there were times when I wish they would've been less conservative, like the 3rd and long draw and the final FG drive, but they attacked that blitz brilliantly, IMO.

 

1) They got lucky against the Steelers. They lose that game if Reed doesn't miss a couple kicks.

 

2) Maybe I'm not giving coaching enough credit here, but it seemed less like game planning and more like Knox and Cutler making some really good plays that accounted for the offense. It just seemed like much of what worked were broken plays that were improvised.

 

I'll give Turner credit for the play with Olsen going vertical down the middle of the field...that was well designed. I just don't have a lot of confidence in him.

[jersey cubs fan]

I didn't see anything wrong with the game plan vs. the Steelers. :confused:

 

 

Sure, there were times when I wish they would've been less conservative, like the 3rd and long draw and the final FG drive, but they attacked that blitz brilliantly, IMO.

 

Brilliantly? They gained 43 yards over 3 drives in the first 1.5 quarters and 23 yards over 3 drives in the 3rd quarter. They punted 6 times. I think that game left a lot to be desired offensively.

[Keener98]

I think Cedric Benson is doing a great job showing that the Bears running game fails for more reasons than the RB. Whether it be coaching, the O-line, or both...

 

If there's a conclusion I've drawn about the Bears in the first two games this season, it's that Ron Turner is not a good NFL OC. He doesn't seem to know how to draw up plays that take advantage of his best players.

 

 

I didn't see anything wrong with the game plan vs. the Steelers. :confused:

 

 

Sure, there were times when I wish they would've been less conservative, like the 3rd and long draw and the final FG drive, but they attacked that blitz brilliantly, IMO.

 

1) They got lucky against the Steelers. They lose that game if Reed doesn't miss a couple kicks.

 

2) Maybe I'm not giving coaching enough credit here, but it seemed less like game planning and more like Knox and Cutler making some really good plays that accounted for the offense. It just seemed like much of what worked were broken plays that were improvised.

 

I'll give Turner credit for the play with Olsen going vertical down the middle of the field...that was well designed. I just don't have a lot of confidence in him.

 

The Steelers probably dont score a TD if Mark Anderson isnt a damn idiot and shove a guy right into the ref, resulting in a 1st down, instead of 3rd and long. Kicking is part of the game, and the weather and field werent ideal for kicking. The Bears kicker is used to Soldier Field and he made his kicks, its called home field advantage.

 

The Steelers had some luck for them also. The Anderson play, the crazy ass Mendenhall run falling down behind the line of scrimmage and somehow getting a 1st down out of it.

[jersey cubs fan]

I still think Pittsburgh outplayed the Bears. Chicago outplayed the Packers and lost, then luck turned against the Steelers. And I think Pittsburgh got a little lucky in its win over Tennessee, as they don't seem willing to acknowledge that Tennessee missed two similar FGs in better conditions.

[Banedon]

The Steelers probably dont score a TD if Mark Anderson isnt a damn idiot and shove a guy right into the ref, resulting in a 1st down, instead of 3rd and long. Kicking is part of the game, and the weather and field werent ideal for kicking. The Bears kicker is used to Soldier Field and he made his kicks, its called home field advantage.

 

The Steelers had some luck for them also. The Anderson play, the crazy ass Mendenhall run falling down behind the line of scrimmage and somehow getting a 1st down out of it.

 

My only real point is that it wasn't like the Bears were an offensive powerhouse. They were as likely to lose it as to win it...and I definitely don't think we can point at that game as a "success" game for Ron Turner's ability at offensive game planning.

[Keener98]

The Steelers probably dont score a TD if Mark Anderson isnt a damn idiot and shove a guy right into the ref, resulting in a 1st down, instead of 3rd and long. Kicking is part of the game, and the weather and field werent ideal for kicking. The Bears kicker is used to Soldier Field and he made his kicks, its called home field advantage.

 

The Steelers had some luck for them also. The Anderson play, the crazy ass Mendenhall run falling down behind the line of scrimmage and somehow getting a 1st down out of it.

 

My only real point is that it wasn't like the Bears were an offensive powerhouse. They were as likely to lose it as to win it...and I definitely don't think we can point at that game as a "success" game for Ron Turner's ability at offensive game planning.

 

I think my feelings about Ron Turner are pretty well known lol. They were playing the defending Super Bowl Champs, more often than not, the team playing them is going to be as likely to lose it as to win it.

 

I want to see what the offense does against a 4-3.

[David]

I didn't see anything wrong with the game plan vs. the Steelers. :confused:

 

 

Sure, there were times when I wish they would've been less conservative, like the 3rd and long draw and the final FG drive, but they attacked that blitz brilliantly, IMO.

 

Brilliantly? They gained 43 yards over 3 drives in the first 1.5 quarters and 23 yards over 3 drives in the 3rd quarter. They punted 6 times. I think that game left a lot to be desired offensively.

 

 

The way they were moving the ball, I think there was a pretty good chance that they could've scored a touchdown on the final drive. You can't assume that they would have, but had they, that would've been 21 points and a good amount of yards against a great defense.

 

For the most part, I think that type of playcalling is exactly how you should attack a defense that is that aggresssive and that good at stopping the run.

 

 

But brilliantly might've been an overstatement.

[David]

I think Cedric Benson is doing a great job showing that the Bears running game fails for more reasons than the RB. Whether it be coaching, the O-line, or both...

 

If there's a conclusion I've drawn about the Bears in the first two games this season, it's that Ron Turner is not a good NFL OC. He doesn't seem to know how to draw up plays that take advantage of his best players.

 

 

I didn't see anything wrong with the game plan vs. the Steelers. :confused:

 

 

Sure, there were times when I wish they would've been less conservative, like the 3rd and long draw and the final FG drive, but they attacked that blitz brilliantly, IMO.

 

1) They got lucky against the Steelers. They lose that game if Reed doesn't miss a couple kicks.

 

2) Maybe I'm not giving coaching enough credit here, but it seemed less like game planning and more like Knox and Cutler making some really good plays that accounted for the offense. It just seemed like much of what worked were broken plays that were improvised.

 

I'll give Turner credit for the play with Olsen going vertical down the middle of the field...that was well designed. I just don't have a lot of confidence in him.

 

 

Really? I don't see this being even close to a guaranteed fact.

[jersey cubs fan]

The way they were moving the ball, I think there was a pretty good chance that they could've scored a touchdown on the final drive. You can't assume that they would have, but had they, that would've been 21 points and a good amount of yards against a great defense.

 

For the most part, I think that type of playcalling is exactly how you should attack a defense that is that aggresssive and that good at stopping the run.

 

 

But brilliantly might've been an overstatement.

 

Tennesse gained 320 yards with Troy on the field while Chicago gained 275 yards without him. There's no point in even bringing up what they could have done. Cutler looked pretty good, but the offense was not impressive.

[David]

The way they were moving the ball, I think there was a pretty good chance that they could've scored a touchdown on the final drive. You can't assume that they would have, but had they, that would've been 21 points and a good amount of yards against a great defense.

 

For the most part, I think that type of playcalling is exactly how you should attack a defense that is that aggresssive and that good at stopping the run.

 

 

But brilliantly might've been an overstatement.

 

Tennesse gained 320 yards with Troy on the field while Chicago gained 275 yards without him. There's no point in even bringing up what they could have done. Cutler looked pretty good, but the offense was not impressive.

 

 

Fair enough. I don't necessarily think it's fair to judge Pittsburgh's defense off that one game and use it as a measuring stick (and Troy was in for what, part of the first quarter? Or did he get hurt in the second quarter? - not that he didn't make a noticeable impact when he was in), but I thought it was a respectable effort for an offense that is in transition and was pretty crappy last year and was up against a pretty damn good defense, Troy or not.

[jersey cubs fan]

Fair enough. I don't necessarily think it's fair to judge Pittsburgh's defense off that one game and use it as a measuring stick (and Troy was in for what, part of the first quarter? Or did he get hurt in the second quarter? - not that he didn't make a noticeable impact when he was in), but I thought it was a respectable effort for an offense that is in transition and was pretty crappy last year and was up against a pretty damn good defense, Troy or not.

 

I think it was an okay showing, mostly by Cutler, Davis and Knox. Nobody else impressed me. Olsen and Forte disappointed.

[David]

Hester also impressed me making some tough and important catches on 3rd downs...

[bukie]

I find very little about the Bears' offensive performance over the first two weeks good. Really, Knox and Hester have been the best things about it, and Cutler could go to Hester more frequently. The running game has been terrible (how much of it is the line and how much of it is Forte?), Olsen has only caught 33% of the balls thrown to him, Bennett hasn't been very effective despite being thrown to the most, and Cutler has had one awful game and one decent game. Maybe it's just been because they've faced two of the better defenses in the NFL (Cincy would beg to differ), but things definitely need to improve here for the Bears to be considered one of the better NFC teams.

 

Defensively, they've been better, but not great. About average all around. On a per-play basis, they've actually been better against the pass than the run, and I'm hoping that isn't just going to be the way things are without Urlacher around.

 

As special teams goes, they're good, but not as good as they've been the past few years. Maynard has been really good, and Gould has been a guarantee on FG/XP, but kickoffs are slightly below average, and returns haven't been great to this point. Could be largely due to the field conditions Sunday, of course.

 

EDIT: I forgot Davis on the offensive end. He's really been a positive also, certainly much better than Olsen so far.

[Guest]

By the way, I need to get myself some free chorizo and eggs on Sunday.

 

 

Where :shock:

 

Wherever BBB secretly congregates for games.

 

If I told everyone where they could get free Chorizo and Eggs, there would be less for me.

[wekse]

what? i mean, you just show up and get free chorizo and eggs? or do you have to pay for something before you get the free chorizo and eggs?

[Guest]

what? i mean, you just show up and get free chorizo and eggs? or do you have to pay for something before you get the free chorizo and eggs?

 

It's assumed you will be ordering drinks while you watch the games. I've seen a few people slip in just for the food, but it's not really all that common. They do the same thing on Monday nights for Monday night football, but with chili cheese dogs.

 

I think the reason they do the breakfast thing is to get people in there earlier. The Chargers are typically a 1pm game, so if they can get a lot of those people in there at 9-10am instead, they make their money back on the food with beverage.

[wekse]

what? i mean, you just show up and get free chorizo and eggs? or do you have to pay for something before you get the free chorizo and eggs?

 

It's assumed you will be ordering drinks while you watch the games. I've seen a few people slip in just for the food, but it's not really all that common. They do the same thing on Monday nights for Monday night football, but with chili cheese dogs.

 

I think the reason they do the breakfast thing is to get people in there earlier. The Chargers are typically a 1pm game, so if they can get a lot of those people in there at 9-10am instead, they make their money back on the food with beverage.

 

i figured that was the case, they just want people in there to buy drinks...but damn, i want a place like that down here...i see why you pm'd the name of the place now, haha.