Week 12 - Bears (6-4) at St Louis (4-6) - 12:00 PM, FOX

[USSoccer]

I'm not sure why you don't think you can separate the decision from the play called and result. One is process. The others are execution and outcome.

 

The important thing is that the process is sound; that decision was dead set correct. The execution (play call) was terrible. The outcome was bad.

[jersey cubs fan]

Better hope he improves on this, because Trestman's likely to be here for at least 2 more years.

 

I think we better hope that they just do a much better job in other areas of the game because those weak spots always seem a lot easier to address in theory than practice.

 

If they start scoring 40 points a game, and halt the occasional opponent's drive, you can live with weird decisions.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm not sure why you don't think you can separate the decision from the play called and result. One is process. The others are execution and outcome.

 

The important thing is that the process is sound; that decision was dead set correct. The execution (play call) was terrible. The outcome was bad.

 

The only reason the decision is right is because of the odds of success if your play call is decent. If the play call is horrible the odds of success go way down and the decision is not right. This isn't a series of individual events, they all tie in together.

[USSoccer]

I'm not sure why you don't think you can separate the decision from the play called and result. One is process. The others are execution and outcome.

 

The important thing is that the process is sound; that decision was dead set correct. The execution (play call) was terrible. The outcome was bad.

 

The only reason the decision is right is because of the odds of success if your play call is decent. If the play call is horrible the odds of success go way down and the decision is not right. This isn't a series of individual events, they all tie in together.

 

No, the decision is right regardless of outcome. A play call could be poor and still work; it was executed poorly but the decision to not kick a field goal was correct.

 

This isn't any different that baseball decisions that don't work out to pull a pitcher or whatever.

[Guest]

That doesn't make any sense. You would take a 5% chance of rushing for a TD on that play over a 99% chance of putting up 3 pts on the board? I don't see what is so hard to understand about what Goony is trying to say. I wasn't against the call to go for it at the time, but the play call was horrible. Anybody watching the game could clearly see that the Bears were getting destroyed at the line of scrimmage. Especially on plays up the middle.

 

A 5% chance, eh?

[Soul]

I'm not sure why you don't think you can separate the decision from the play called and result. One is process. The others are execution and outcome.

 

The important thing is that the process is sound; that decision was dead set correct. The execution (play call) was terrible. The outcome was bad.

 

The only reason the decision is right is because of the odds of success if your play call is decent. If the play call is horrible the odds of success go way down and the decision is not right. This isn't a series of individual events, they all tie in together.

 

No, the decision is right regardless of outcome. A play call could be poor and still work; it was executed poorly but the decision to not kick a field goal was correct.

 

This isn't any different that baseball decisions that don't work out to pull a pitcher or whatever.

 

Fine, it was more than bad execution though. The Rams knew where the ball was going because it was a vanilla jumbo line set and then the ball went to a back with no speed or cutting ability. You can't just expect to out-execute another NFL team when you just give them an easy-as-hell read like that.

 

That's my whole problem with the thing. It was a bush league junky play call.

[USSoccer]

I'm not sure why you don't think you can separate the decision from the play called and result. One is process. The others are execution and outcome.

 

The important thing is that the process is sound; that decision was dead set correct. The execution (play call) was terrible. The outcome was bad.

 

The only reason the decision is right is because of the odds of success if your play call is decent. If the play call is horrible the odds of success go way down and the decision is not right. This isn't a series of individual events, they all tie in together.

 

No, the decision is right regardless of outcome. A play call could be poor and still work; it was executed poorly but the decision to not kick a field goal was correct.

 

This isn't any different that baseball decisions that don't work out to pull a pitcher or whatever.

 

Fine, it was more than bad execution though. The Rams knew where the ball was going because it was a vanilla jumbo line set and then the ball went to a back with no speed or cutting ability. You can't just expect to out-execute another NFL team when you just give them an easy-as-hell read like that.

 

That's my whole problem with the thing. It was a bush league junky play call.

 

Which is the execution part. Not the decision part.

[mul21]

 

Which is the execution part. Not the decision part.

 

I generally agree with your point, but the play call is part of the decision part. Execution is what the players do with the play call, and that was atrocious as well.

[Guest]

 

Which is the execution part. Not the decision part.

 

I generally agree with your point, but the play call is part of the decision part. Execution is what the players do with the play call, and that was atrocious as well.

 

They're two separate decisions and implying that they can't be evaluated separately is absurd.

[Guest]

Just read this game thread. It was kind of funny reading it at the point of the goal line stand, because watching that 20 minute debacle with Bush was simply too unbelievable for words.

 

The yellow flags made me so numb during this game, I could no longer care whether we came back to win or not.

[Guest]

I'm not sure why you don't think you can separate the decision from the play called and result. One is process. The others are execution and outcome.

 

The important thing is that the process is sound; that decision was dead set correct. The execution (play call) was terrible. The outcome was bad.

 

The only reason the decision is right is because of the odds of success if your play call is decent. If the play call is horrible the odds of success go way down and the decision is not right. This isn't a series of individual events, they all tie in together.

 

No, the decision is right regardless of outcome. A play call could be poor and still work; it was executed poorly but the decision to not kick a field goal was correct.

 

This isn't any different that baseball decisions that don't work out to pull a pitcher or whatever.

 

Fine, it was more than bad execution though. The Rams knew where the ball was going because it was a vanilla jumbo line set and then the ball went to a back with no speed or cutting ability. You can't just expect to out-execute another NFL team when you just give them an easy-as-hell read like that.

 

That's my whole problem with the thing. It was a bush league junky play call.

 

Don't imagine it mattered if it was Bush in there or not. Garza got beat so quickly the play was shot.

[cubbyvirus00]

I feel like this game and the last 2 Lion games have been absolute torture to watch and cheer for. I've lost a year of my life having to watch those games.

[Formerly Snayke]

I kept getting frustrated yesterday because the Rams weren't laying a glove on McCown, so I attributed it to Bushrod having a hell of a game against Quinn. But I'm looking over PFF and he earned a -11.1 with a -8.7 in pass blocking. McCown was hurried 17(!) times, yet he still put up a really strong game. Pretty impressive.

[Guest]

I kept getting frustrated yesterday because the Rams weren't laying a glove on McCown, so I attributed it to Bushrod having a hell of a game against Quinn. But I'm looking over PFF and he earned a -11.1 with a -8.7 in pass blocking. McCown was hurried 17(!) times, yet he still put up a really strong game. Pretty impressive.

Quinn just absolutely embarrassed Bushrod. I can't imagine you watched the game and thought Bushrod did well.

 

McCown was pretty good in the pocket. The Rams d-line is very impressive.

[cubbyvirus00]

I kept getting frustrated yesterday because the Rams weren't laying a glove on McCown, so I attributed it to Bushrod having a hell of a game against Quinn. But I'm looking over PFF and he earned a -11.1 with a -8.7 in pass blocking. McCown was hurried 17(!) times, yet he still put up a really strong game. Pretty impressive.

 

 

The Bears only tried 1 screen that I can remember which was blown up badly and its a real shame we only tried once. The D line was extremely aggressive on McCown and I felt we could have done more in the quick screen game. We had a huge end around wiped out and it seems like every big positive play was negated by a stupid play.

[Formerly Snayke]

Quinn just absolutely embarrassed Bushrod. I can't imagine you watched the game and thought Bushrod did well.

 

McCown was pretty good in the pocket. The Rams d-line is very impressive.

 

I think I was fooled by McCown, who made his line look better than they were. To compare, Andrew Luck had a similarly shitty line protecting him two weeks ago and he played his worst game of the season.

[UMFan83]

I kept getting frustrated yesterday because the Rams weren't laying a glove on McCown, so I attributed it to Bushrod having a hell of a game against Quinn. But I'm looking over PFF and he earned a -11.1 with a -8.7 in pass blocking. McCown was hurried 17(!) times, yet he still put up a really strong game. Pretty impressive.

 

holy [expletive] a -11.1?!?!? Mills was -5.6 too and long -2.8, I didn't think the pass blocking was terrible other than Bushrod but wow I was wrong.

[rawaction]

I kept getting frustrated yesterday because the Rams weren't laying a glove on McCown, so I attributed it to Bushrod having a hell of a game against Quinn. But I'm looking over PFF and he earned a -11.1 with a -8.7 in pass blocking. McCown was hurried 17(!) times, yet he still put up a really strong game. Pretty impressive.

 

holy [expletive] a -11.1?!?!? Mills was -5.6 too and long -2.8, I didn't think the pass blocking was terrible other than Bushrod but wow I was wrong.

 

That site hates Bushrod. But yeah, he got his ass kicked. I actually thought Mills did well against Chris Long. I thought Kyle was beaten a lot worse than his number would indicate. I thought he tore his ACL on consecutive plays right around the fight, because he got pushed in the backfield and buckled both times.

[Guest]

I kept getting frustrated yesterday because the Rams weren't laying a glove on McCown, so I attributed it to Bushrod having a hell of a game against Quinn. But I'm looking over PFF and he earned a -11.1 with a -8.7 in pass blocking. McCown was hurried 17(!) times, yet he still put up a really strong game. Pretty impressive.

 

holy [expletive] a -11.1?!?!? Mills was -5.6 too and long -2.8, I didn't think the pass blocking was terrible other than Bushrod but wow I was wrong.

 

How was Garza? I thought he was worse than Mills.

[Formerly Snayke]

Garza was +1.4 in pass blocking and -0.6 in run blocking.

[Guest]

Garza was +1.4 in pass blocking and -0.6 in run blocking.

 

Wow, he seemed much worse by the eye test.

 

Thanks.

[Sammy Sofa]

Quinn just absolutely embarrassed Bushrod. I can't imagine you watched the game and thought Bushrod did well.

 

McCown was pretty good in the pocket. The Rams d-line is very impressive.

 

I think I was fooled by McCown, who made his line look better than they were. To compare, Andrew Luck had a similarly [expletive] line protecting him two weeks ago and he played his worst game of the season.

 

Both Cutler and McCown have made the line look a LOT better than it actually has been. I heard it mentioned the other day that the Bears' o-line has allowed their QB's to be the most hurried or however the hell you put it. So they're not getting sacked as much, but the Bears' QB's are still under way too much pressure.

[Guest]

McCown was actually brilliant at recognizing when the pocket was closing up and stepping up and away from the pressure. A couple of the plays were so close that the defender was actually able to get a piece of the ball as he was rearing back to throw.

[rawaction]

Quinn just absolutely embarrassed Bushrod. I can't imagine you watched the game and thought Bushrod did well.

 

McCown was pretty good in the pocket. The Rams d-line is very impressive.

 

I think I was fooled by McCown, who made his line look better than they were. To compare, Andrew Luck had a similarly [expletive] line protecting him two weeks ago and he played his worst game of the season.

 

Both Cutler and McCown have made the line look a LOT better than it actually has been. I heard it mentioned the other day that the Bears' o-line has allowed their QB's to be the most hurried or however the hell you put it. So they're not getting sacked as much, but the Bears' QB's are still under way too much pressure.

 

Its not everyone at once this year. Edge rushers are fine. QBs can get away from them if they can step up in the middle. And its not both edges at the same time usually.

[cubbyvirus00]

Beautiful game summary of the Bears on Sunday

 

- An impressive Forte touchdown run featuring multiple cuts and a spin move nullified by penalty.

 

- McCown's errant throw toward an open Michael Bush for a touchdown.

 

- Four(!) Bush stuffs at the goal line.

 

- A key Brandon Marshall drop.

 

- A holding penalty that nullified a kickoff return for a touchdown that had the Chicago fans in the stands chanting "bulls***."

 

- A Martellus Bennett touchdown, also brought back by a penalty.

 

- A McCown interception (he went 36-of-47, 352 yards, two touchdowns, two turnovers).

 

- Wasted timeouts and delay-of-game penalties.

 

Puke.