Bears game 1 vs Falcons, Sun at noon on Fox

[WrigleyField 22]

Maybe they'll get better at it.

 

I just think that if we're using "great" for a performance that involved allowing 24 points, forcing zero turnovers, and getting bowled over on two crucial second-half drives, we're going to run out of superlatives if the defense ever does something crazy like hold a team under 20 or put together a couple of forced fumbles.

I'm fine with saying the D was only good yesterday if that's your only issue. Perhaps that's not weighting the opponent, but yea, a great performance doesn't include a couple of those plays.

 

Which isn't to say this couldn't be a great D if all goes well this season...

[Chocolate Milk]

I was stunned how much of the offense they ran through Cohen. People suspected they were trying to "hide" him when he didn't play much in the 3rd preseason game but I wasn't really buying it. I didn't think Fox would be a guy who would make a rookie 4th rounder a critical piece from the first game - figured he would make him "earn it."

[UMFan83]

I was stunned how much of the offense they ran through Cohen. People suspected they were trying to "hide" him when he didn't play much in the 3rd preseason game but I wasn't really buying it. I didn't think Fox would be a guy who would make a rookie 4th rounder a critical piece from the first game - figured he would make him "earn it."

 

 

To me it seemed like a situation that evolved as the game progressed. To me the thing that shocked me was him getting a high number of snaps on the final drive including some where Howard wasn't on the field at all. Obviously the drive was going to be pass heavy and Howard was one of the better backs in the league at pass blocking last year. So to not have him on the field means 2 things: 1) don't trust Howard's receiving ability 2) cohens ability to make plays outweighed any benefits of Howard's blocking. Maybe Cohen is a good blocker as well but given his size I doubt he's as good as Jordan

[weitliz]

What I noticed about Cohen yesterday was how much trouble defenders had at getting him to go down. I noticed more than one occasion where a defender seemed to need to noticeably reach down or crouch down to get a good hold on Cohen. Granted, there will a couple times where Cohen got lit up by a hit but I think that comes with the territory of being a small RB.

 

I like the idea that Cohen's size makes for occasional awkward tackling by defenders.

[UMFan83]

What I noticed about Cohen yesterday was how much trouble defenders had at getting him to go down. I noticed more than one occasion where a defender seemed to need to noticeably reach down or crouch down to get a good hold on Cohen. Granted, there will a couple times where Cohen got lit up by a hit but I think that comes with the territory of being a small RB.

 

I like the idea that Cohen's size makes for occasional awkward tackling by defenders.

 

Yeah they pointed that out on the broadcast. Since he is shorter and has a low center of gravity, normal tackling angles won't necessarily bring him down. Actually Barry Sanders had similar elusiveness and I'm assuming this is part of the reason why (although he was 2 inches taller than Cohen).

[Chocolate Milk]

I realized one of my son's books is about Mike Glennon.

[raw]

 

But you should use last year's team because the one constant is the scheme and fangio's scheme doesn't preach turnovers the way Lovie's taught.

 

Eh. Every scheme preaches turnovers. Lovie's Bears teams were just amazing at getting them because of an enormous amount of talent. When Fangio had great talent on D in SF his defenses finished (1, 14, 7 and 5 in order) in turnovers forced. Oddly, the year they finished 14th was when they went to the Superbowl.

[We Got The Whole 9]

What kind of defense wouldn't stress the importance of taking the ball away...

[Guest]

What kind of defense wouldn't stress the importance of taking the ball away...

 

Turnovers should be a byproduct of what you do on defense, not the focus. The focus should be doing the things that lead to negative plays, and sometimes, turnovers.

[Guest]

 

I'm not sure where you get "zero threat to force turnovers" from, since you either get turnovers or you don't.

 

They were 32nd at getting turnovers last year and got 0 yesterday. May be just a coincidence.

 

Kind of a small sample size this year.

[WrigleyField 22]

What kind of defense wouldn't stress the importance of taking the ball away...

 

Turnovers should be a byproduct of what you do on defense, not the focus. The focus should be doing the things that lead to negative plays, and sometimes, turnovers.

I'll agree like 75% on this. Yea, you should be focusing on the "peripherals", but stressing the TO leads to actually doing something with turnovers and not the Mel Tucker defense that watched balls on the ground instead of pouncing on it, and ideally returning TOs.

[David]

Under Lovie, the Bears stressed takeaways to the point of downright silliness. It's all a combination of talent/scheme/coaching but they definitely wouldn't shut up about it as their main objective.

[raw]

Under Lovie, the Bears stressed takeaways to the point of downright silliness. It's all a combination of talent/scheme/coaching but they definitely wouldn't shut up about it as their main objective.

 

I'd say they more stressed doing something with the takeaways. The defense set out to score touchdowns every game.

[WrigleyField 22]

Under Lovie, the Bears stressed takeaways to the point of downright silliness. It's all a combination of talent/scheme/coaching but they definitely wouldn't shut up about it as their main objective.

 

I'd say they more stressed doing something with the takeaways. The defense set out to score touchdowns every game.

Agreed. They'd take a 20% less chance to get a turnover for a 30% chance they could advance said turnover.

 

(I don't know if those are the percentages, but that was the idea).

[Guest]

Under Lovie, the Bears stressed takeaways to the point of downright silliness. It's all a combination of talent/scheme/coaching but they definitely wouldn't shut up about it as their main objective.

 

but the Bears ran a Back 7-type defense in Lovie's scheme. They dropped all linebackers into coverage and trusted their speed in closing on the run. Extremely personnel-driven by having the single greatest coverage linebacker in the history of the NFL, and Lance Briggs. They basically played a mini-prevent while rushing 4, and were able to close quickly on the receiver or ball carrier with everyone, standing them up and ripping at the ball. The idea was to make the offense run as many plays as they could, as they figured the more plays the offense ran, the more likely they were to make a mistake. It was a very risky and tiring defense to play.

 

Now, the trend seems to be for the offense to make the defense run as many plays as they can, with the idea that they'll be gassed at the end.

[minnesotacubsfan]

The Tampa 2 is awesome if/when the players are all healthy and the DL gets pressure. It's hard to run if your DL doesn't have track stars/all pros