Game #12 KC Chiefs @ CHICAGO BEARS 1:00 PM

[jersey cubs fan]

Embattled coach Todd Haley said Monday that Palko remains the starter, but he acknowledged that Orton will be given every opportunity to win the job before Sunday's game at against the Chicago Bears at Soldier Field.

 

"Tyler's the starter," Haley said, "but as we do every week and with every position, if we feel Kyle or Ricky (Stanzi) gives us a chance to win, we'll make that determination."

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-chiefs-orton-to-get-chance-to-start-vs-bears-20111128,0,5229489.story

[SpongeWorthy]

So Orton's starting.

[minnesotacubsfan]

"Tyler Palko is our quarterback"

[rawaction]

especially when the opposing D had been completely keyed on the screen plays all day.

 

That doesn't matter though. If two people do their jobs correctly (Hanie throwing the ball on a line and Williams blocking the linebacker) then that play works. This is Monday morning QBing. The only reason the play call sucks is because it was not executed well.

 

No, it is not. It was an idiotic call for that time and place on the field with far too many moving parts. It was the epitome of being too cute when the Bears should not have been cute. You had a QB playing really poorly and throwing the ball to the opposition and you asked him to do something you shouldn't have asked him to do. It was dumb and it is pointless to try and pretend it's only hindsight.

 

It was the exact same play called in Week 1 vs. Atlanta when Cutler missed Kellen Davis wide open in the flat. While I agree it wasn't necessary to call that play, it wasn't a dumb call. First down is the only chance that play has of working. QB has to be smart enough to see it wasn't there though.

[treebird]

So Orton's starting.

 

OR RICKY STANZI

[jersey cubs fan]

especially when the opposing D had been completely keyed on the screen plays all day.

 

That doesn't matter though. If two people do their jobs correctly (Hanie throwing the ball on a line and Williams blocking the linebacker) then that play works. This is Monday morning QBing. The only reason the play call sucks is because it was not executed well.

 

No, it is not. It was an idiotic call for that time and place on the field with far too many moving parts. It was the epitome of being too cute when the Bears should not have been cute. You had a QB playing really poorly and throwing the ball to the opposition and you asked him to do something you shouldn't have asked him to do. It was dumb and it is pointless to try and pretend it's only hindsight.

 

It was the exact same play called in Week 1 vs. Atlanta when Cutler missed Kellen Davis wide open in the flat. While I agree it wasn't necessary to call that play, it wasn't a dumb call. First down is the only chance that play has of working. QB has to be smart enough to see it wasn't there though.

 

The fact that they tried it with Cutler before and it failed hardly qualifies as a defense for trying it there. The coach has to be smart enough to know he has a careless QB out there who is throwing the ball to the opposition.

 

Where and when did it take place in Atlanta? I see 1 1st/10 incompletion to Davis on the play-by-play, it occurred on the 40. I vaguely remember the play.

 

You try that stuff in the middle of the field, not in tight in the red zone with a pressing defense, a careless QB and a team in desperate need of points (and not a turnover).

[minnesotacubsfan]

I don't think I even care who starts for them. Palko is bad, Orton doesn't know the playbook and Stanzi is a rookie.

 

 

Okoye has to channel his inner SUH and destroy them all. I mean comon this is like pee-wee level QB play here

[Guest]

especially when the opposing D had been completely keyed on the screen plays all day.

 

That doesn't matter though. If two people do their jobs correctly (Hanie throwing the ball on a line and Williams blocking the linebacker) then that play works. This is Monday morning QBing. The only reason the play call sucks is because it was not executed well.

 

No, it is not. It was an idiotic call for that time and place on the field with far too many moving parts. It was the epitome of being too cute when the Bears should not have been cute. You had a QB playing really poorly and throwing the ball to the opposition and you asked him to do something you shouldn't have asked him to do. It was dumb and it is pointless to try and pretend it's only hindsight.

 

It was the exact same play called in Week 1 vs. Atlanta when Cutler missed Kellen Davis wide open in the flat. While I agree it wasn't necessary to call that play, it wasn't a dumb call. First down is the only chance that play has of working. QB has to be smart enough to see it wasn't there though.

 

The fact that they tried it with Cutler before and it failed hardly qualifies as a defense for trying it there. The coach has to be smart enough to know he has a careless QB out there who is throwing the ball to the opposition.

 

Where and when did it take place in Atlanta? I see 1 1st/10 incompletion to Davis on the play-by-play, it occurred on the 40. I vaguely remember the play.

 

You try that stuff in the middle of the field, not in tight in the red zone with a pressing defense, a careless QB and a team in desperate need of points (and not a turnover).

 

IIRC, it would have been successful as Davis was wide open and all by himself on the other side, but Cutler overthrew him badly.

[rawaction]

especially when the opposing D had been completely keyed on the screen plays all day.

 

That doesn't matter though. If two people do their jobs correctly (Hanie throwing the ball on a line and Williams blocking the linebacker) then that play works. This is Monday morning QBing. The only reason the play call sucks is because it was not executed well.

 

No, it is not. It was an idiotic call for that time and place on the field with far too many moving parts. It was the epitome of being too cute when the Bears should not have been cute. You had a QB playing really poorly and throwing the ball to the opposition and you asked him to do something you shouldn't have asked him to do. It was dumb and it is pointless to try and pretend it's only hindsight.

 

It was the exact same play called in Week 1 vs. Atlanta when Cutler missed Kellen Davis wide open in the flat. While I agree it wasn't necessary to call that play, it wasn't a dumb call. First down is the only chance that play has of working. QB has to be smart enough to see it wasn't there though.

 

The fact that they tried it with Cutler before and it failed hardly qualifies as a defense for trying it there. The coach has to be smart enough to know he has a careless QB out there who is throwing the ball to the opposition.

 

Where and when did it take place in Atlanta? I see 1 1st/10 incompletion to Davis on the play-by-play, it occurred on the 40. I vaguely remember the play.

 

You try that stuff in the middle of the field, not in tight in the red zone with a pressing defense, a careless QB and a team in desperate need of points (and not a turnover).

 

It was a screen pass. Granted it was all the way across the field, but a screen is typically a low risk play for a turnover. A misdirection screen is even a lower risk.

 

And I think the opposite. What's the point of calling a TE screen with the slow Davis in the middle of the field? The play is designed to get a wide open WR in the flat. He's not going to take it in from the 40 on that play regardless of if he's wide open or not. That play is more likely to get 6-yards and a TD than 10 yards and a 1st down in the middle of the field. You say the defense is pressing, but on the goalline, the defense usually is pressing against the run. That's why you see wide open passes to TEs with delayed leaks off the line of scrimmage all the time. You sell run hard (or in this case sprint out the QB to the right) and you misdirect an overzealous LB into blowing the coverage. Whether the pulling OL and TE took off too early, whether the QB screwed up the throw, it was a solid design and an ok call.

[scarey]

 

It was a screen pass. Granted it was all the way across the field, but a screen is typically a low risk play for a turnover. A misdirection screen is even a lower risk.

 

And I think the opposite. What's the point of calling a TE screen with the slow Davis in the middle of the field? The play is designed to get a wide open WR in the flat. He's not going to take it in from the 40 on that play regardless of if he's wide open or not. That play is more likely to get 6-yards and a TD than 10 yards and a 1st down in the middle of the field. You say the defense is pressing, but on the goalline, the defense usually is pressing against the run. That's why you see wide open passes to TEs with delayed leaks off the line of scrimmage all the time. You sell run hard (or in this case sprint out the QB to the right) and you misdirect an overzealous LB into blowing the coverage. Whether the pulling OL and TE took off too early, whether the QB screwed up the throw, it was a solid design and an ok call.

 

I obviously agree with all of this.

 

Also, it seems Curry did his homework and recognized the play. You have to give him credit for making a great play.

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/7292054/mike-ditka-disappointed-chicago-bears-call-goal-line

 

Curry wasn't fooled by the play. In fact, he was expecting it.

 

"I'll never forget seeing it on film and saying, 'That's their go-to play. If they need these points, that's their play,'" he told reporters Sunday, according to a story on the San Francisco Chronicle website. "Then I saw the formation on the field and I was like, 'This is easy, I'm just going to wait for them to throw it to me.'"

[Soul]

I don't think I even care who starts for them. Palko is bad, Orton doesn't know the playbook and Stanzi is a rookie.

 

 

Okoye has to channel his inner SUH and destroy them all. I mean comon this is like pee-wee level QB play here

 

It's really bad. Blow up the middle and their QB -- whoever he may be -- will fold like a deck of cards.

[Soul]

Also, it seems Curry did his homework and recognized the play. You have to give him credit for making a great play.

 

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/7292054/mike-ditka-disappointed-chicago-bears-call-goal-line

 

Curry wasn't fooled by the play. In fact, he was expecting it.

 

"I'll never forget seeing it on film and saying, 'That's their go-to play. If they need these points, that's their play,'" he told reporters Sunday, according to a story on the San Francisco Chronicle website. "Then I saw the formation on the field and I was like, 'This is easy, I'm just going to wait for them to throw it to me.'"

 

Good for him, but we do a number of different plays in different situations. Every game there are certain formations or situations where a defender might recognize what is going to happen, based on his film study. That's why they do it, frankly.

 

But he didn't discover some deep, dark secret. He did his homework, and essentially got an advantage from it like countless others.

[scarey]

He did his homework, and essentially got an advantage from it like countless others.

 

That's my point.

[UMFan83]

Why does someone who lives in the Central time zone create a game thread for 2 Central time zone teams played in the Central time zone and list the game time as 1:00pm?

 

I can't believe this. The Bears will be playing at noon for the first time in 8 weeks. Ok I'm being a bit deceptive here. The game against the Bucs in London was at noon Chicago time but at night for the Bears in London.

[rawaction]

Why does someone who lives in the Central time zone create a game thread for 2 Central time zone teams played in the Central time zone and list the game time as 1:00pm?

 

I can't believe this. The Bears will be playing at noon for the first time in 8 weeks. Ok I'm being a bit deceptive here. The game against the Bucs in London was at noon Chicago time but at night for the Bears in London.

 

I know this is a stupid thing to obsess over, but I don't think the London game should count as a noon game for the Bears even though it was noon in Chicago while the game was being played. Of course, I don't count the fact that the Raiders game was at 1pm in Oakland either. But that was the closest the Bears have had to a "regular" gameday routine in a long time. They have either been waiting around most of the afternoon or waiting around until the evening to play for 2 months.

[jersey cubs fan]

It was a screen pass. Granted it was all the way across the field, but a screen is typically a low risk play for a turnover. A misdirection screen is even a lower risk.

 

Obviously it wasn't low risk. It was a misdirection screen in tight with a careless QB rolling out to the right, with his back to the play and throwing blindly off his back foot. It's a stupid play and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.

[Guest]

It was a screen pass. Granted it was all the way across the field, but a screen is typically a low risk play for a turnover. A misdirection screen is even a lower risk.

 

Obviously it wasn't low risk. It was a misdirection screen in tight with a careless QB rolling out to the right, with his back to the play and throwing blindly off his back foot. It's a stupid play and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.

 

It makes it even more stupid when opposing defenses can easily recognize it and not only defend it, but embarrass them. If this is what makes Martz' playbook so difficult to learn, I suggest maybe dumbing down the book a little bit and getting rid of that play.

[rawaction]

It was a screen pass. Granted it was all the way across the field, but a screen is typically a low risk play for a turnover. A misdirection screen is even a lower risk.

 

Obviously it wasn't low risk. It was a misdirection screen in tight with a careless QB rolling out to the right, with his back to the play and throwing blindly off his back foot. It's a stupid play and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.

 

Ah, the 'ol "it's stupid that you disagree with me" shot by you.

 

And obviously it wasn't low risk on this occassion, hence the word TYPICALLY in my post.

 

Seems to me that the play wouldn't be so stupid had it worked, as it would have in the Atlanta game had Cutler made a good throw. And it wasn't really "in tight" other than the sense that every play in the redzone is in tight. Granted there were only 25 yards or so to work with between the dropback and the back of the endzone, but there were only 5 out of 22 players on that side of the field and 3 of them had on Bears jerseys. If anything, the play was "less tight" than 99% of other plays run in the redzone.

[scarey]

Raw is killing it.

 

BTW, I've been sullying Edwin Williams good name. I've been calling him out for missing the block on Curry when it was actually Webb.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Why does someone who lives in the Central time zone create a game thread for 2 Central time zone teams played in the Central time zone and list the game time as 1:00pm?

 

I can't believe this. The Bears will be playing at noon for the first time in 8 weeks. Ok I'm being a bit deceptive here. The game against the Bucs in London was at noon Chicago time but at night for the Bears in London.

 

 

1. I don't live in the Central Time Zone.

2. I took the time from NFL's website, they list everything on east coast time.

3. who cares about noon games? that's like 10 am for me, I'm barely lucid at that point in the day.

[minnesotacubsfan]

It was a screen pass. Granted it was all the way across the field, but a screen is typically a low risk play for a turnover. A misdirection screen is even a lower risk.

 

Obviously it wasn't low risk. It was a misdirection screen in tight with a careless QB rolling out to the right, with his back to the play and throwing blindly off his back foot. It's a stupid play and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.

 

Ah, the 'ol "it's stupid that you disagree with me" shot by you.

 

And obviously it wasn't low risk on this occassion, hence the word TYPICALLY in my post.

 

Seems to me that the play wouldn't be so stupid had it worked, as it would have in the Atlanta game had Cutler made a good throw. And it wasn't really "in tight" other than the sense that every play in the redzone is in tight. Granted there were only 25 yards or so to work with between the dropback and the back of the endzone, but there were only 5 out of 22 players on that side of the field and 3 of them had on Bears jerseys. If anything, the play was "less tight" than 99% of other plays run in the redzone.

 

 

they snapped it from the freakin 6, it really couldn't get a whole lot "tighter". And why all the trickery? Just ram the ball in, or pass it to a safe place, corner, middle back of the endzone. And I don't agree with jersey, I think that play's design is garbage no matter where you try it.

[Theo]

It was a screen pass. Granted it was all the way across the field, but a screen is typically a low risk play for a turnover. A misdirection screen is even a lower risk.

 

Obviously it wasn't low risk. It was a misdirection screen in tight with a careless QB rolling out to the right, with his back to the play and throwing blindly off his back foot. It's a stupid play and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.

 

 

 

Seems to me that the play wouldn't be so stupid had it worked, as it would have in the Atlanta game had Cutler made a good throw.

 

But Cutler overthrew it, because it's a difficult throw. You are asking your QB to fake one way than throw against the grain. It's tough. So if Cutler had trouble with it, why would you try with a much lesser talent in Hanie, and in that situation. Matt Bowen a former NFL player was on the radio and said it was a bad call. It was a bad call.

[rawaction]

It was a screen pass. Granted it was all the way across the field, but a screen is typically a low risk play for a turnover. A misdirection screen is even a lower risk.

 

Obviously it wasn't low risk. It was a misdirection screen in tight with a careless QB rolling out to the right, with his back to the play and throwing blindly off his back foot. It's a stupid play and it makes no sense to pretend otherwise.

 

 

 

Seems to me that the play wouldn't be so stupid had it worked, as it would have in the Atlanta game had Cutler made a good throw.

 

But Cutler overthrew it, because it's a difficult throw. You are asking your QB to fake one way than throw against the grain. It's tough. So if Cutler had trouble with it, why would you try with a much lesser talent in Hanie, and in that situation. Matt Bowen a former NFL player was on the radio and said it was a bad call. It was a bad call.

 

Cutler overthrew it because it was a difficult throw, but Caleb Hanie threw it right on the money? (was a good throw, just happened to be a LB right in front of Davis). And if Matt Bowen said it......must be true.

[Theo]

I will take the opinion of a former NFL player(and current sports journalists, so it isn't like his brains are bashed in) over yours.

[treebird]

I will take the opinion of a former NFL player(and current sports journalists, so it isn't like his brains are bashed in) over yours.

 

someone lock this thread and get a former nfl player in here for a chat so we can just accept all of his opinions as fact