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

[Jon]

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.

Yeah, I can't see the ball moving at all. Sunday's call was far easier to make.

[Wilson A2000]

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.

 

Especially on a play when you know it is going to be a jump ball in the end zone and Johnson has the best chance of anyone to beat you.

 

I think the media and fans have encouraged Lovie to pressure the QB more by blitzing because the front four hasn't put up consistent pressure (but blitzing doesn't really work well with the cover-two). But even if Lovie is wrong, there is no way he should succumb to media pressure if he is convinced he needs to blitz and then throw that back in our faces. He just looks so small saying that.

[DivineBovine]

I haven't read the entire thread, but a lot of negativity here and in the online Chicago media.

 

Just watched the game on NFL network because I didn't get a chance on Sunday. I was expecting the worst after reading some of the stories out of Chicago. Not defending Lovie, but I can certainly live with the win.

 

Granted the Lions are a bad team, and the Bears made a lot of stupid mistakes. But the coaches didn't fumble the ball or commit the dumb penalties. Blame them if it continues all year but not over 1 game.

 

463 yards to 168. They moved the ball on offense, and the defense was pretty effective.

 

I'd much rather win this way than win on a few fluke turnovers and getting outgained by a lot for the game. I'll be cautiously optimistic.

[UMFan83]

No but hypothetically coaches are supposed to have their teams fundamentally sound and prepared to play the game. So when your team fumbles 3-4 times in a game, or your WR runs the completely wrong route as the ball sails way over his head a couple times, it reflects on the coaching. Of course the players play a huge part, but (again hypothetically, I'm not a coach nor have I ever been coached in football) coaching has some responsibility for that

[Guest]

No but hypothetically coaches are supposed to have their teams fundamentally sound and prepared to play the game. So when your team fumbles 3-4 times in a game, or your WR runs the completely wrong route as the ball sails way over his head a couple times, it reflects on the coaching. Of course the players play a huge part, but (again hypothetically, I'm not a coach nor have I ever been coached in football) coaching has some responsibility for that

 

If you are going to have turnovers, it's best to have them in the first game (and a game you win), so you can reflect back on those turnovers and correct them. This year, with running back depth, Forte can't cough up the ball. This year, with TE depth, Olsen can't cough up the ball. Cutler can throw a pick a game all season long if he continues to throw for nearly 400 yards. Can't blame the fumble on Cutler, although he should know better by now to get rid of the ball more quickly.

 

This year, there can be more than a lecture if someone can't protect the ball. There can be some pine time. That's even more incentive for guys to be more careful.

[Magnetic Curses]

I haven't read the entire thread, but a lot of negativity here and in the online Chicago media.

 

Just watched the game on NFL network because I didn't get a chance on Sunday. I was expecting the worst after reading some of the stories out of Chicago. Not defending Lovie, but I can certainly live with the win.

 

Granted the Lions are a bad team, and the Bears made a lot of stupid mistakes. But the coaches didn't fumble the ball or commit the dumb penalties. Blame them if it continues all year but not over 1 game.

 

463 yards to 168. They moved the ball on offense, and the defense was pretty effective.

 

I'd much rather win this way than win on a few fluke turnovers and getting outgained by a lot for the game. I'll be cautiously optimistic.

 

it's basically the meatball fans who are calling it the end of the world or are self-flagellating over the whole Mattel and Mars Bar Quick Energy Chocobot-whatever non-catch.

 

you aren't a better fan because you think it should be ruled a catch. you're just a meatball that thinks feeling sorry for the lions makes you less of a homer and therefore, more apt to be heard to when you shout that ditka should coach the cubs at the top of your lungs at a brat fry in lockport.

[jersey cubs fan]

you aren't a better fan because you think it should be ruled a catch. you're just a meatball that thinks feeling sorry for the lions makes you less of a homer and therefore, more apt to be heard to when you shout that ditka should coach the cubs at the top of your lungs at a brat fry in lockport.

 

You're not making any sense.

[Magnetic Curses]

what are you having a problem understanding?

[Magnetic Curses]

also, i noticed, despite flying under the radar a bit, chester taylor still managed to hit 73 yards from scrimmage on sunday. not bad for a backup.

[Magnetic Curses]

I haven't read the entire thread, but a lot of negativity here and in the online Chicago media.

 

Just watched the game on NFL network because I didn't get a chance on Sunday. I was expecting the worst after reading some of the stories out of Chicago. Not defending Lovie, but I can certainly live with the win.

 

Granted the Lions are a bad team, and the Bears made a lot of stupid mistakes. But the coaches didn't fumble the ball or commit the dumb penalties. Blame them if it continues all year but not over 1 game.

 

463 yards to 168. They moved the ball on offense, and the defense was pretty effective.

 

I'd much rather win this way than win on a few fluke turnovers and getting outgained by a lot for the game. I'll be cautiously optimistic.

 

it's basically the meatball fans who are calling it the end of the world or are self-flagellating over the whole Mattel and Mars Bar Quick Energy Chocobot-whatever non-catch.

 

you aren't a better fan because you think it should be ruled a catch. you're just a meatball that thinks feeling sorry for the lions makes you less of a homer and therefore, more apt to be heard to when you shout that ditka should coach the cubs at the top of your lungs at a brat fry in lockport.

 

case in point:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v519/suleyman21/meatball.jpg

[Soul]

Every fan who thinks the rule isn't a good thing is therefore some kind of reverse-homer meatball in your mind.

 

Okay then :-k

[Banedon]

Every fan who thinks the rule isn't a good thing is therefore some kind of reverse-homer meatball in your mind.

 

Okay then :-k

 

There's a difference between understanding that the call was correct, but disagreeing with the rule...and thinking it should have been called a TD. The screenshot he linked didn't say anything about disagreeing with the rule. Just that it should have been a TD...which of course, by rule, it shouldn't have been.

[jersey cubs fan]

Every fan who thinks the rule isn't a good thing is therefore some kind of reverse-homer meatball in your mind.

 

Okay then :-k

 

There's a difference between understanding that the call was correct, but disagreeing with the rule...and thinking it should have been called a TD. The screenshot he linked didn't say anything about disagreeing with the rule. Just that it should have been a TD...which of course, by rule, it shouldn't have been.

 

The more I've read about it the less I think the rule needs to be changed. Johnson lost control of the ball. Had he held on, it's a TD. You can't really make the rule specific enough to differentiate between plays that should be a TD, and plays that shouldn't. Just catch the ball and keep it, and it's a TD. Worry about the celebration later, and style points don't exist. You can't compare it to the runner who crosses the plane, because the difference between a run and a pass is huge. On a run, the ball is never going to be dead until the whistle blows. A forward pass must be completed. If a guy catches one outstretched in the end zone, gets both feet in, falls to the ground and drops the ball, it's not a TD. If you want that to be a TD, then change the rule. But don't change the rule because Johnson felt it necessary to land on the ball with one hand and lose control.

[Magnetic Curses]

that's what i think, too. i've seen plenty of plays called non-catches because of the rule and all, i believe, should have been. this one just looked a little bit different because he had the ball in one hand. if he'd have tucked the ball into his body and fallen on it, ball striking the ground and wobbling, it would be the same thing, no catch.

 

it's a good rule and you can't overturn it. and the real meatballs are the ones who want to give the refs more room to make a judgement call. yeah, that's a GREAT idea.

[hawkeyecub]

Every fan who thinks the rule isn't a good thing is therefore some kind of reverse-homer meatball in your mind.

 

Okay then :-k

 

There's a difference between understanding that the call was correct, but disagreeing with the rule...and thinking it should have been called a TD. The screenshot he linked didn't say anything about disagreeing with the rule. Just that it should have been a TD...which of course, by rule, it shouldn't have been.

 

The more I've read about it the less I think the rule needs to be changed. Johnson lost control of the ball. Had he held on, it's a TD. You can't really make the rule specific enough to differentiate between plays that should be a TD, and plays that shouldn't. Just catch the ball and keep it, and it's a TD. Worry about the celebration later, and style points don't exist. You can't compare it to the runner who crosses the plane, because the difference between a run and a pass is huge. On a run, the ball is never going to be dead until the whistle blows.

 

Except for all the times when they rule that the ball was dead before the whistle blew.

[jersey cubs fan]

Every fan who thinks the rule isn't a good thing is therefore some kind of reverse-homer meatball in your mind.

 

Okay then :-k

 

There's a difference between understanding that the call was correct, but disagreeing with the rule...and thinking it should have been called a TD. The screenshot he linked didn't say anything about disagreeing with the rule. Just that it should have been a TD...which of course, by rule, it shouldn't have been.

 

The more I've read about it the less I think the rule needs to be changed. Johnson lost control of the ball. Had he held on, it's a TD. You can't really make the rule specific enough to differentiate between plays that should be a TD, and plays that shouldn't. Just catch the ball and keep it, and it's a TD. Worry about the celebration later, and style points don't exist. You can't compare it to the runner who crosses the plane, because the difference between a run and a pass is huge. On a run, the ball is never going to be dead until the whistle blows.

 

Except for all the times when they rule that the ball was dead before the whistle blew.

 

What does that mean? Are you talking about when a runner goes down?

[SpongeWorthy]

When a runner breaks the plane and then has the ball stripped before the whistle it's always ruled a TD on at least instant replay. I think that's what he means.

[hawkeyecub]

When a runner breaks the plane and then has the ball stripped before the whistle it's always ruled a TD on at least instant replay. I think that's what he means.

 

Correct. There are a ton of running plays at the goaline where the whistle doesn't blow until the ball has already been knocked loose or they can get into the pile.

[JonJayCutler]

if he'd have tucked the ball into his body and fallen on it, ball striking the ground and wobbling, it would be the same thing, no catch.

 

This is a great point. And I don't think the call is nearly as controversial if that's what happens. But I think something about him holding onto the ball with one hand gave viewers the impression that the play had ended.

[jersey cubs fan]

When a runner breaks the plane and then has the ball stripped before the whistle it's always ruled a TD on at least instant replay. I think that's what he means.

 

Correct. There are a ton of running plays at the goaline where the whistle doesn't blow until the ball has already been knocked loose or they can get into the pile.

 

So you have no point.

[Guest]

The more I've read about it the less I think the rule needs to be changed. Johnson lost control of the ball. Had he held on, it's a TD. You can't really make the rule specific enough to differentiate between plays that should be a TD, and plays that shouldn't. Just catch the ball and keep it, and it's a TD. Worry about the celebration later, and style points don't exist. You can't compare it to the runner who crosses the plane, because the difference between a run and a pass is huge. On a run, the ball is never going to be dead until the whistle blows. A forward pass must be completed. If a guy catches one outstretched in the end zone, gets both feet in, falls to the ground and drops the ball, it's not a TD. If you want that to be a TD, then change the rule. But don't change the rule because Johnson felt it necessary to land on the ball with one hand and lose control.

 

Agreed. There will always be a controversial play that challenges the rules as they are written. No matter what you change the rule to be, someone will generate a play that challenges it. Even as fans of the team that would have been on the losing end, it's easy for us to say he really did catch that ball. But, not according to the rules. It's unfortunate that he let that ball go at the end of the play, but he did have the ability to tuck it and control it and he didn't. That's not the Bears' or the official's fault. Because he didn't tuck it away, it had to go to review where the rules are actually written in a way that makes it not a catch.

 

Sorry.

 

There was a reason that the NFL felt that the extra wording was necessary in the rules, and that's probably because the previously worded rules were constantly being challenged to the point of needing to articulate the rules even further.

[Guest]

Except for all the times when they rule that the ball was dead before the whistle blew.

 

What does that mean? Are you talking about when a runner goes down?

 

I thought he was talking about the famous Ed Hochuli early whistle a few years back in a game being played by the Chargers and Broncos. A play was blown dead, but continuation of the play resulted in the Chargers having the opportunity to win the game.

 

One of the most famous halloween costumes that year in San Diego was an NFL referee uniform with a Denver Broncos t-shirt on underneath.