Bears game 1: Sunday Sep. 12 vs DET on Fox

[Guest]

Mully from 670 pointed out that on the goal line play, the Bears carry 4 TEs and don't have a true FB. That made it hard to push it in. Clark is technically the FB.

 

Manumaleuna was the FB on 4th down. He had a great lead block, actually. It was just too bad he couldn't block the other 10, because there were at least 3 people who got through on that side. I also thought it might have been a hole for Forte to run up Manu's back on that play. Push the lead blocker and fall on his back.

 

We don't have a guy that's really built for goaline rushing. Like Biggs mentioned this morning, Forte is an upright rusher, and he's not going to change at this point (nor would you really want to change that).

 

In one of the mailbags I read this week (I think it was Pompei's Q&A), someone mentioned the idea of using Henry Melton in a situation like that. He's played FB before, and could be used like the Fridge in that kind of situation.

 

I was actually encouraged by a lot this week...with the caveat that it's the Lions. But man, our linebackers looked like studs. Urlacher was all over the place, and Briggs' strip of Hill was just perfect timing.

I hadn't thought of using Melton there, but the idea has some merit. I'm not sure it makes a difference if the line continues to allow penetration like that, though.

[Soul]

Mully from 670 pointed out that on the goal line play, the Bears carry 4 TEs and don't have a true FB. That made it hard to push it in. Clark is technically the FB.

 

Manumaleuna was the FB on 4th down. He had a great lead block, actually. It was just too bad he couldn't block the other 10, because there were at least 3 people who got through on that side. I also thought it might have been a hole for Forte to run up Manu's back on that play. Push the lead blocker and fall on his back.

 

We don't have a guy that's really built for goaline rushing. Like Biggs mentioned this morning, Forte is an upright rusher, and he's not going to change at this point (nor would you really want to change that).

 

In one of the mailbags I read this week (I think it was Pompei's Q&A), someone mentioned the idea of using Henry Melton in a situation like that. He's played FB before, and could be used like the Fridge in that kind of situation.

 

I was actually encouraged by a lot this week...with the caveat that it's the Lions. But man, our linebackers looked like studs. Urlacher was all over the place, and Briggs' strip of Hill was just perfect timing.

I hadn't thought of using Melton there, but the idea has some merit. I'm not sure it makes a difference if the line continues to allow penetration like that, though.

 

There's no way to go but up. Think of it that way :)

[Magnetic Curses]

Apparently, the offense had the most total yards in a game since 1997. That's crazy.

 

welcome to the martz era.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'm usually a firm believer in going for it on 4th and goal from the 1. Worst case scenario is the other team gets the ball with 99 yards to go. Not to mention they usually will waste a down, or even two, running a sneak to just get out of their own end zone.

 

But when you have the chance to take the lead with eight minutes to go against a team that hasn't been able to move the ball on you all half, you take the three points and grab the lead. I thought it was a pretty easy decision to kick the field goal.

 

That being said, I don't understand why people are still talking about that play. They won the game. It was a stupid decision to go for it, but they won the game despite having a minus three turnover ratio. Take the W, never speak of it again, and go to Dallas next week. That's what I'd do, at least.

[Butterscup1679666578]

I'm usually a firm believer in going for it on 4th and goal from the 1. Worst case scenario is the other team gets the ball with 99 yards to go. Not to mention they usually will waste a down, or even two, running a sneak to just get out of their own end zone.

 

But when you have the chance to take the lead with eight minutes to go against a team that hasn't been able to move the ball on you all half, you take the three points and grab the lead. I thought it was a pretty easy decision to kick the field goal.

 

That being said, I don't understand why people are still talking about that play. They won the game. It was a stupid decision to go for it, but they won the game despite having a minus three turnover ratio. Take the W, never speak of it again, and go to Dallas next week. That's what I'd do, at least.

 

They had a -1 turnover ratio.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'm usually a firm believer in going for it on 4th and goal from the 1. Worst case scenario is the other team gets the ball with 99 yards to go. Not to mention they usually will waste a down, or even two, running a sneak to just get out of their own end zone.

 

But when you have the chance to take the lead with eight minutes to go against a team that hasn't been able to move the ball on you all half, you take the three points and grab the lead. I thought it was a pretty easy decision to kick the field goal.

 

That being said, I don't understand why people are still talking about that play. They won the game. It was a stupid decision to go for it, but they won the game despite having a minus three turnover ratio. Take the W, never speak of it again, and go to Dallas next week. That's what I'd do, at least.

 

They had a -1 turnover ratio.

 

Whoops. Not sure why I thought Detroit only had 1 turnover.

[Soul]

I'm not going to change my mind that I would rather have seen a FG try there.

 

But one thing I will say is that I spend a lot of time thinking about how Lovie is risk-averse and likes to take the conservative route too often. Here was a case where he really took a big risk. It didn't pay off, but from that perspective it was actually good to see him go for the TD, in hindsight.

[javy knows my name]

I'm not going to change my mind that I would rather have seen a FG try there.

 

But one thing I will say is that I spend a lot of time thinking about how Lovie is risk-averse and likes to take the conservative route too often. Here was a case where he really took a big risk. It didn't pay off, but from that perspective it was actually good to see him go for the TD, in hindsight.

Let me get this straight. You say that Lovie is normally risk-averse to his team's detriment, but then because he took a big risk yesterday, that you didn't agree with, and that ended up hurting the team, you're going to praise him for it?

[SouthSideRyan]

The most likely outcome from a 4th and a 1/2 yard situation is a TD. The next most likely outcome is you get the ball back in Lions territory. The Lions couldn't move it against the Bears with Hill, and the Bears were moving the ball all day against them, so why should they have gone for a FG? The best chance for Detroit was to only need a FG to win it, which you would've set them up with a chance to do after moving the ball 40 yards on offense.

 

In order to go for the FG, you'd have to believe:

 

-The Bears couldn't go 1/2 yard on offense.

-The Bears couldn't force a 3 and out with the Lions offense stuck inside their own 1

-The Bears couldn't move the ball following a 3 and out.

[Soul]

I'm not going to change my mind that I would rather have seen a FG try there.

 

But one thing I will say is that I spend a lot of time thinking about how Lovie is risk-averse and likes to take the conservative route too often. Here was a case where he really took a big risk. It didn't pay off, but from that perspective it was actually good to see him go for the TD, in hindsight.

Let me get this straight. You say that Lovie is normally risk-averse to his team's detriment, but then because he took a big risk yesterday, that you didn't agree with, and that ended up hurting the team, you're going to praise him for it?

 

Just because I wouldn't have done the same thing doesn't mean I can't find something about the decision that I choose to like, yes.

[UMFan83]

The most likely outcome from a 4th and a 1/2 yard situation is a TD. The next most likely outcome is you get the ball back in Lions territory. The Lions couldn't move it against the Bears with Hill, and the Bears were moving the ball all day against them, so why should they have gone for a FG? The best chance for Detroit was to only need a FG to win it, which you would've set them up with a chance to do after moving the ball 40 yards on offense.

 

In order to go for the FG, you'd have to believe:

 

-The Bears couldn't go 1/2 yard on offense.

-The Bears couldn't force a 3 and out with the Lions offense stuck inside their own 1

-The Bears couldn't move the ball following a 3 and out.

 

They hadnt moved the ball 1/2 on the other 3 plays. There were multiple games last year where we couldnt punch the ball in from with 1-2 yards. Our offensive line does an awful job on run blocking in general.

 

Most likely the Bears could have forced a 3 and out, but if they don't you could be looking at a situation where they knock 6-7 minutes off the clock with a long drive. That point is the hardest to counter. But by passing up an opportunity for the lead with 8 minutes left in the game is the riskier call in the game. If the Lions werent moving the ball at all against the Bears, then they shouldnt have even worried about the Lions getting into FG range after taking the lead.

 

Your third point was proven by the Bears being unable to move the ball following the 3 and out. As well as the other 2-3 times in the game where the offense stalled right there at the 40 yard line.

 

Like I said before, I'm normally aggressive minded in these situations, but in this one I find it really hard to pass up taking the lead.

[bukie]

I would say that 99% of the time you go for it on 4th and 6 inches from the goal line. The only situation where I would kick the FG is if it gave you the lead in the fourth quarter against an offensively inept team, while at the same time your team's offense is incapable of gaining a half yard when rushing consistently.

[Soul]

In order to go for the FG, you'd have to believe:

 

-The Bears couldn't go 1/2 yard on offense. -- I found myself believing they wouldn't make it. After all, they'd failed 3 consecutive times in a row before that.

 

-The Bears couldn't force a 3 and out with the Lions offense stuck inside their own 1 -- I didn't have much problem believing the Bears D would stuff them; we'd been stuffing them most of the game already.

 

-The Bears couldn't move the ball following a 3 and out. -- I think that was a real concern. They had the ball with great field position several times, even in the Lions' zone, and came away empty-handed.

 

Comments above. I don't think it was all that unreasonable, given the circumstances, to flip one's opinion from normally wanting them to go for it on 4th and goal to wanting the field goal.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Soul

[SpongeWorthy]

I'd say the only time you'd kick the field goal is if all you need is a field goal to take the lead and time is absolutely a factor.

 

I don't view 9 minutes being left in the game as much of a consideration at all. That's an eternity.

[javy knows my name]

I'm not going to change my mind that I would rather have seen a FG try there.

 

But one thing I will say is that I spend a lot of time thinking about how Lovie is risk-averse and likes to take the conservative route too often. Here was a case where he really took a big risk. It didn't pay off, but from that perspective it was actually good to see him go for the TD, in hindsight.

Let me get this straight. You say that Lovie is normally risk-averse to his team's detriment, but then because he took a big risk yesterday, that you didn't agree with, and that ended up hurting the team, you're going to praise him for it?

 

Just because I wouldn't have done the same thing doesn't mean I can't find something about the decision that I choose to like, yes.

I like to call those "lowered expectations"

[Soul]

I'm not going to change my mind that I would rather have seen a FG try there.

 

But one thing I will say is that I spend a lot of time thinking about how Lovie is risk-averse and likes to take the conservative route too often. Here was a case where he really took a big risk. It didn't pay off, but from that perspective it was actually good to see him go for the TD, in hindsight.

Let me get this straight. You say that Lovie is normally risk-averse to his team's detriment, but then because he took a big risk yesterday, that you didn't agree with, and that ended up hurting the team, you're going to praise him for it?

 

Just because I wouldn't have done the same thing doesn't mean I can't find something about the decision that I choose to like, yes.

I like to call those "lowered expectations"

 

I'm just trying to be nice to the guy.

[Brian]

chicagobears.com video with two examples of the rule going against the Bears.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/multimediapopup.asp?mm_file_id=2013&play_clip=Y

[Wilson A2000]

I'd say the only time you'd kick the field goal is if all you need is a field goal to take the lead and time is absolutely a factor.

 

I don't view 9 minutes being left in the game as much of a consideration at all. That's an eternity.

 

The Bears were fumble and mistake prone all game and the defense had been stout. Under those circumstances you kick the field goal.

[Sosa21MVP]

chicagobears.com video with two examples of the rule going against the Bears.

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/multimediapopup.asp?mm_file_id=2013&play_clip=Y

 

I remember those plays. The Peterson one reminds me an awful lot of the Polamalu interception that was called an incomplete pass in that Colts-Steelers playoff game in January 2006.

[JonJayCutler]

Holy crap I forgot how horrible the Berrian call was in 2004. That was easily worse than yesterday IMO. The ball never moved, never hit the ground, and Berrian clearly got two feet down. People need to show that replay to Lions fans since we happened to be playing Detroit. That call likely robbed us of a win even though it was a meaningless game late in the season.

 

The Peterson play was definitely incomplete.

[Banedon]

Criticized often for his Cover-2 scheme, Smith was asked why there wasn't safety help for Zack Bowman when the 6-foot-1 cornerback was put in a jump ball situation against 6-5 Calvin Johnson, a leap the Lions wide receiver won — until he tried to brace himself with the ball in his right hand and it squirted out.

 

"It seems like every time we play double coverage, (people ask) 'Why do you guys play two deep?'" Smith said. "On that play, we had a blitz on — 'Why don't you blitz more?' — and when you blitz you can't double cover everybody on each play. Football 101. Can't do it. On that play we didn't. The next two we did."

 

Who the hell is asking for more blitzing?

[Guest]

Criticized often for his Cover-2 scheme, Smith was asked why there wasn't safety help for Zack Bowman when the 6-foot-1 cornerback was put in a jump ball situation against 6-5 Calvin Johnson, a leap the Lions wide receiver won — until he tried to brace himself with the ball in his right hand and it squirted out.

 

"It seems like every time we play double coverage, (people ask) 'Why do you guys play two deep?'" Smith said. "On that play, we had a blitz on — 'Why don't you blitz more?' — and when you blitz you can't double cover everybody on each play. Football 101. Can't do it. On that play we didn't. The next two we did."

 

Who the hell is asking for more blitzing?

I don't mind mixing up coverage and putting on a blitz. However, if you're picking whom you're going to leave on an island, don't isolate your corner who is matched up against Calvin Johnson.

[UMFan83]

Is that the same reason that Steve Smith was left single covered by our 2nd or 3rd best cb all game during that playoff game 5 years ago?

[Banedon]

Criticized often for his Cover-2 scheme, Smith was asked why there wasn't safety help for Zack Bowman when the 6-foot-1 cornerback was put in a jump ball situation against 6-5 Calvin Johnson, a leap the Lions wide receiver won — until he tried to brace himself with the ball in his right hand and it squirted out.

 

"It seems like every time we play double coverage, (people ask) 'Why do you guys play two deep?'" Smith said. "On that play, we had a blitz on — 'Why don't you blitz more?' — and when you blitz you can't double cover everybody on each play. Football 101. Can't do it. On that play we didn't. The next two we did."

 

Who the hell is asking for more blitzing?

I don't mind mixing up coverage and putting on a blitz. However, if you're picking whom you're going to leave on an island, don't isolate your corner who is matched up against Calvin Johnson.

 

Right. My point was though, that last year we complained about blitzing too much, and that Peppers arrival was suppose to make it so you could rush 4 and not have to blitz as much. But Lovie is delusional and thinking that fans are clamoring for more blitzing....which is nonsense.

[Soul]

Criticized often for his Cover-2 scheme, Smith was asked why there wasn't safety help for Zack Bowman when the 6-foot-1 cornerback was put in a jump ball situation against 6-5 Calvin Johnson, a leap the Lions wide receiver won — until he tried to brace himself with the ball in his right hand and it squirted out.

 

"It seems like every time we play double coverage, (people ask) 'Why do you guys play two deep?'" Smith said. "On that play, we had a blitz on — 'Why don't you blitz more?' — and when you blitz you can't double cover everybody on each play. Football 101. Can't do it. On that play we didn't. The next two we did."

 

Who the hell is asking for more blitzing?

I don't mind mixing up coverage and putting on a blitz. However, if you're picking whom you're going to leave on an island, don't isolate your corner who is matched up against Calvin Johnson.

 

Right. My point was though, that last year we complained about blitzing too much, and that Peppers arrival was suppose to make it so you could rush 4 and not have to blitz as much. But Lovie is delusional and thinking that fans are clamoring for more blitzing....which is nonsense.

 

What catches my attention about that quote the most is the little "Football 101" comment that he threw in there. Lovie seems increasingly frustrated with his interactions with the media & fans to me. He seems to feel that people who aren't employed in the game itself are not qualified to comment or criticize.