Bears game 7: Sunday Oct. 24 vs WAS on FOX

[Soul]

I understand Lovie is taking a beating over this, and he should. I'm very angry over it.

 

However, the limiting of the damage by the refs is only possible two times per game, 3 only if you get both of the first 2 correct. Coaches need to decide not only if they should challenge, but weigh whether or not they are using their last challenge and not be able to overturn more horrible ref calls later on. That's simply not fair.

 

In this case, regardless of whether Lovie got it right or not, that would have been the last challenge with plenty of game left to go. He had just lost one.

 

To me, there's no letting the refs off the hook. They're making horrible call after horrible call. This one looks to me like it was a pretty straightforward, easy call. The ball goes right through the plane. There aren't a ton of guys blocking the view. The ref is stationed right on the line for the express purpose of being able to make that PARTICULAR call.

 

I'm sorry, but if the ref can't get that one right he needs to be given his walking papers. Period.

 

And if refs as a whole can't make easy calls, then there needs to be more challenges possible in some way so teams aren't put in such bad positions as needing to decide if they should allow bad reffing to happen or if they should spend their last challenge.

[jersey cubs fan]

I understand Lovie is taking a beating over this, and he should. I'm very angry over it.

 

However, the limiting of the damage by the refs is only possible two times per game, 3 only if you get both of the first 2 correct. Coaches need to decide not only if they should challenge, but weigh whether or not they are using their last challenge and not be able to overturn more horrible ref calls later on. That's simply not fair.

 

In this case, regardless of whether Lovie got it right or not, that would have been the last challenge with plenty of game left to go. He had just lost one.

 

That is why you don't waste challenges on stupid ones where the result is either touchdown or you have the ball first and goal on the 1, and you use it on the important ones when the result is either touchdown for the other freaking team has the ball.

 

There's nothing "unfair" about only getting two challenges. Use them wisely and it's no problem. Use them when the play matters.

[Guest]

I understand Lovie is taking a beating over this, and he should. I'm very angry over it.

 

However, the limiting of the damage by the refs is only possible two times per game, 3 only if you get both of the first 2 correct. Coaches need to decide not only if they should challenge, but weigh whether or not they are using their last challenge and not be able to overturn more horrible ref calls later on. That's simply not fair.

 

In this case, regardless of whether Lovie got it right or not, that would have been the last challenge with plenty of game left to go. He had just lost one.

 

That is why you don't waste challenges on stupid ones where the result is either touchdown or you have the ball first and goal on the 1, and you use it on the important ones when the result is either touchdown for the other freaking team has the ball.

 

There's nothing "unfair" about only getting two challenges. Use them wisely and it's no problem. Use them when the play matters.

Given the Bears issues at getting the ball in from the one yard line, I wasn't really upset about the first challenge. On the other hand, there's no way you don't challenge that fumble, even if it's your last one.

[jersey cubs fan]

Given the Bears issues at getting the ball in from the one yard line, I wasn't really upset about the first challenge. On the other hand, there's no way you don't challenge that fumble, even if it's your last one.

 

Watching live I saw TD, but when I saw the second replay clearly showed he was down, I was upset. You can't make that decision based on gut instincts.

[UMFan83]

I personally think there should be 3 challenges a game, regardless of whether you get the first 2 right. It doesn't make sense to me to reward someone who got 2 challenges right with another one. I understand its so that coaches don't slow down the game and use their challenges when they aren't sure if something is going to get overturned, but considering the coaches most of the time can't see the play they are challenging (especially on the road) and are relying on their coordinators opinions, I think its rough to penalize them for trying to get a big call correct.

 

I understand the need to limit challenges to not slow down the game, so I'm all for keeping the number of challenges reasonable, but I don't think any fans, coaches or players mind stopping the game 5-6 times a game to make sure the calls are correct. It should never come to a scenario where a coach doesn't challenge a goalline TD play in the 3rd quarter because they fear not having a challenge for a bigger play later on.

 

That said, from my perspective, I do not recall many games where running out of challenges has been an issue. It has happened some but not enough for a public outcry for more challenges per game.

 

Edit: Also, Lovie is 1-5 on challenges this year in 7 games. The chances of him needing to use a challenge later in the game are not big. The chances of him needing to challenge a play bigger than one where 6 points is the result of a successful challenge is zero.

Edited October 26, 2010 by UMFan83

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'd like the NFL to adopt the NCAA replay rules.

[jersey cubs fan]

It should never come to a scenario where a coach doesn't challenge a goalline TD play in the 3rd quarter because they fear not having a challenge for a bigger play later on.

 

It didn't have to come to that scenario. Lovie has a history of incompetence with replay challenges. It is part of the game and he sucks at it and the team lost because of it. I really don't think this has to be a referendum on the system itself, that takes far too much away from where all the blame should be, on Lovie's shoulders.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd like the NFL to adopt the NCAA replay rules.

 

Somebody other than the ref on the field decides, right? I like that, but I hate that they review so frequently.

[UMFan83]

It should never come to a scenario where a coach doesn't challenge a goalline TD play in the 3rd quarter because they fear not having a challenge for a bigger play later on.

 

It didn't have to come to that scenario. Lovie has a history of incompetence with replay challenges. It is part of the game and he sucks at it and the team lost because of it. I really don't think this has to be a referendum on the system itself, that takes far too much away from where all the blame should be, on Lovie's shoulders.

 

I have no problem with putting the blame on Lovie. I've always been a fan of giving coaches 3 challenges a game regardless of how Lovie chooses to waste them.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'd like the NFL to adopt the NCAA replay rules.

 

Somebody other than the ref on the field decides, right? I like that, but I hate that they review so frequently.

 

I also don't like how they review plays. More often that not, they determine that the play is inconclusive (even when there's enough visual evidence to overturn a call) and don't change the call that's on the field.

 

It's a better system than what the NFL has but the head ref should be able to go under the hood, unlike in college.

[Soul]

I'd like the NFL to adopt the NCAA replay rules.

 

Somebody other than the ref on the field decides, right? I like that, but I hate that they review so frequently.

 

I also don't like how they review plays. More often that not, they determine that the play is inconclusive (even when there's enough visual evidence to overturn a call) and don't change the call that's on the field.

 

It's a better system than what the NFL has but the head ref should be able to go under the hood, unlike in college.

 

What's wrong with the NHL system? They just buzz in when there's a play that should be reviewed.

 

Also, I don't like how the decision to review is based on whether the network gets the right replay up on the screen in time for the next snap. Someone should have quicker access to those camera angles.

 

Also, I don't like the whole "snap the ball quickly so they can't challenge!" thing. It's a loophole. The point is to get the call right, not allow bad plays to stand based on a technicality.

[UMFan83]

Uh oh

 

Perhaps all of the responsibility should go Cutler's way, considering Chicago lost by three points, with two of the quarterback's turnovers either leading directly to points (the interception in the third quarter that DeAngelo Hall returned 92 yards for a touchdown) or preventing the Bears from scoring them (Cutler's fumble on the Redskins' 1-yard line in the third quarter).

 

Such facts aren't lost upon Cutler's teammates, and at least one wondered privately after the game whether coach Lovie Smith's mantra of accountability extended to the quarterback, who has now thrown four or more interceptions in three separate outings since joining the team.

 

Based on Cutler's recent performances, in addition to the body of work from Chicago's 7-9 campaign in 2009, it's not out of the question to wonder whether the quarterback is in danger of losing the team.

 

In three seasons in Denver, the quarterback had never thrown more than three interceptions in a game -- and he threw three only once. Then again, Cutler had never taken as much punishment in terms of sacks (27 for the season, including 19 over his past 10 quarters), either.

[Banedon]

It was probably Tommie Harris, or Aromashodu, or someone that has been "disciplined" in some way. Nobody can possibly want Hanie in there.

[sneakypower]

a decent recap of the game, fwiw

[Banedon]

Bears sign punter Richmond McGee to practice squad as a backup for Maynard. There's some question as to Maynard's health apparently.

[Soul]

Yes, his health. That must be it.

[Banedon]

Indications are that the Bears were tipping certain of their plays in critical situations during Sunday’s 17-14 loss to the Washington Redskins.

 

On the first-and-goal from the Washington 1-yard line early in the third quarter, defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth noticed which Bears in particular were talking among themselves. The result was an idea of exactly where the play was going to be run.

 

“Right before the play, Jay [Cutler] and [center Olin] Kreutz and [left guard Chris] Williams were talking, so I figured they were probably going to try and come to my side,” Haynesworth said. There was a timeout for a Bears challenge on the previous play and “they saw me [stem] over, so they figured I was going to be outside the [center-guard] gap.

 

“So I kind of used that against them.”

 

Haynesworth filled the gap, stopped Cutler’s attempt to sneak for a touchdown, and linebacker London Fletcher came over the pile to strip the ball from Cutler.

 

http://www.csnchicago.com/10/24/10/Bears-notebook-Offense-tipping-their-pla/landing_bears.html?blockID=338023&feedID=626

 

Also apparently Hall was reading how many steps Cutler would take, and on three step drops would cut in front of the receiver.

[jersey cubs fan]

except he scored a touchdown on that play so good for you

[Soul]

Of course Hall is going to start jumping routes. Actually I mentioned that WAS would start jumping routes after we had used the 3 step drop for awhile.

 

That's just life in the NFL.

[NCCubFan]

I personally think there should be 3 challenges a game, regardless of whether you get the first 2 right. It doesn't make sense to me to reward someone who got 2 challenges right with another one. I understand its so that coaches don't slow down the game and use their challenges when they aren't sure if something is going to get overturned, but considering the coaches most of the time can't see the play they are challenging (especially on the road) and are relying on their coordinators opinions, I think its rough to penalize them for trying to get a big call correct.

What I'd advocate is a rule where a team can challenge as many times as necessary until they have two unsuccessful challenges. I don't think there should be ANY limit on successful challenges because doing so would punish a team because of the officials' errors.

[Wilson A2000]

So there are about 5 or 6 guys trying to come to a consensus in the Bears booth who relay their decision to Lovie on whether or not to challenge a call. The offensive guys decide for offensive plays and defensive guys for defensive plays. But how do they come to a consensus and how long does that take when you need to make a pretty quick recommendation to Lovie? Just a terrible way to bring challenges down to Lovie.

[Soul]

I don't know.

 

Here's what I suggest: let's not turn this into rocket science. The guy with the best percentage on challenges is Coughlin. Just find out how he's doing it, and copy it.

 

Done.

[Banedon]

If it wasn't gonna get Cutler killed, this would be getting to the point of being hilarious unintentional comedy...

 

Garza should be back against Buffalo, and will be playing right guard, while Edwin Williams is going to be a backup.

[Soul]

If it wasn't gonna get Cutler killed, this would be getting to the point of being hilarious unintentional comedy...

 

Garza should be back against Buffalo, and will be playing right guard, while Edwin Williams is going to be a backup.

 

So I guess the key to a solid OLine is continuity, not talent.

 

.....unless you have a guy hurt, then it's switcheroo time. Or something.

[soapy]

Lovie, Martz, et al. are (once again) really reving up the rhetoric about running the ball more after the bye week. That's all well and good, but running the ball more isn't going to help anything if you average 2 YPC. Running the ball simply for the sake of having a more "balanced" attack is stupid.

 

If they think they are going to run the ball more, they need to get a helluva lot better at it.