Bears Beat Byes…, But Lions?

[Brian707]

Went to the game today. Probably 1/3 Lions fans. Their fans were a cocky bunch.  It was nice to see the mass exodus of Lions fans with about 5 minutes to go 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Brian707

[gflore34]

Lions whining about the no call on Fields grounding the ball, I say suck it crybabies.  On top of being terrible the Bears have royally fucked over by terrible officiating - the numerous no calls on targeting/roughing of Fields - its about horsefeathers time the Bears got the benefit of terrible officiating.

[gflore34]

5 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

Went to the game today. Probably 1/3 Lions fans. Their fans were a cocky bunch.  It was nice to see the mass exodus of Lions fans with about 5 minutes to go 

They've got a good team, still not in the group with SF, Dallas or Philly but, probably the best of the rest.

[Brian707]

Just now, gflore34 said:

They've got a good team, still not in the group with SF, Dallas or Philly but, probably the best of the rest.

Yeah they are good but I think at most they win 1 playoff game

[Brian707]

If the Bears win next week, they just might head to GB in week 18 at 8-8 playing for a playoff spot.

[UMFan83]

2 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

They've got a good team, still not in the group with SF, Dallas or Philly but, probably the best of the rest.

Are they really that good?  The KC win was big but we've already seen that KC isn't as daunting as they've been.  Their other wins are against 

6-7 Falcons

6-6 Packers

1-12 Panthers

6-7 Bucs

5-8 Raiders

5-8 Chargers

5-8 Bears

6-7 Saints

You have to be some degree of good to get to 9-4 I suppose but that's a pretty weak slate and their point differential for the season is +26.  But the NFC North all had really easy schedules this year.  With a tougher schedule they are probably closer to 7-6 or 6-7 I think.

[raw]

This is the Bears first post-bye win since 2013. Fields won starts 2 and 3 of his career and hasn't won B2B starts since. The Bears did win B2B in Weeks 16 & 17 of 2021, but those were started by Foles and Dalton, respectively.

- 

[UMFan83]

 

93.2%!!!

[UK]

29 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

Are they really that good?  The KC win was big but we've already seen that KC isn't as daunting as they've been.  Their other wins are against 

6-7 Falcons

6-6 Packers

1-12 Panthers

6-7 Bucs

5-8 Raiders

5-8 Chargers

5-8 Bears

6-7 Saints

You have to be some degree of good to get to 9-4 I suppose but that's a pretty weak slate and their point differential for the season is +26.  But the NFC North all had really easy schedules this year.  With a tougher schedule they are probably closer to 7-6 or 6-7 I think.

They're this year's version of last year's Minnesota Vikings.

[minnesotacubsfan]

2 hours ago, raw said:

This is the Bears first post-bye win since 2013. Fields won starts 2 and 3 of his career and hasn't won B2B starts since. The Bears did win B2B in Weeks 16 & 17 of 2021, but those were started by Foles and Dalton, respectively.

- 

They beat the Lions. A division foe who have been playing well. 9-4 now. It was a really good win and you can pick your reasons why, but it. Is.  Over. I’ll sleep well tonight.

 

[Soul]

3 hours ago, gflore34 said:

Lions whining about the no call on Fields grounding the ball, I say suck it crybabies.  On top of being terrible the Bears have royally fucked over by terrible officiating - the numerous no calls on targeting/roughing of Fields - its about horsefeathers time the Bears got the benefit of terrible officiating.

I decided to check on the rule they invoked.  There is indeed a clause that says it’s not IG if the defender affects the throw.  A pretty good argument can be made that there was no receiver that could possibly have been the target of the throw regardless.

But it’s not like there’s no rule that the refs used.

 

[UMFan83]

Disappointed to find out that due to tiebreakers and teams in the hunt playing each other, despite the Bears potentially being 1 game out of a playoff spot after tomorrow the earliest they can claim ownership of a playoff spot is after Week 17 (without ties being involved).

The tiebreakers wont be our friend with the Bears already losing the tiebreakers to Tampa Bay and New Orleans, tied vs. Minnesota, trailing 0-1 to GB.  We can win the tiebreaker against Atlanta, and can probably still win it with GB and Minnesota (too lazy to look that deeply into the 2nd and 3rd level tiebreakers).

Basically, I think the Bears need to win out to have a shot at the playoffs.  Finishing 8-9 will probably pull them even with one of the teams they lost the tiebreaker to.

The biggest game will be next week at Cleveland.  If they can get that they have a decent shot of getting to the GB game at 8-8 and perhaps a win and in scenario.

[We Got The Whole 9]

The Sweat trade is looking pretty decent

[UK]

4 hours ago, UMFan83 said:

Disappointed to find out that due to tiebreakers and teams in the hunt playing each other, despite the Bears potentially being 1 game out of a playoff spot after tomorrow the earliest they can claim ownership of a playoff spot is after Week 17 (without ties being involved).

The tiebreakers wont be our friend with the Bears already losing the tiebreakers to Tampa Bay and New Orleans, tied vs. Minnesota, trailing 0-1 to GB.  We can win the tiebreaker against Atlanta, and can probably still win it with GB and Minnesota (too lazy to look that deeply into the 2nd and 3rd level tiebreakers).

Basically, I think the Bears need to win out to have a shot at the playoffs.  Finishing 8-9 will probably pull them even with one of the teams they lost the tiebreaker to.

The biggest game will be next week at Cleveland.  If they can get that they have a decent shot of getting to the GB game at 8-8 and perhaps a win and in scenario.

Edited December 11, 2023 by UK

[NorthsideAvenger]

9 hours ago, gflore34 said:

Lions whining about the no call on Fields grounding the ball, I say suck it crybabies. 

Bleachernation said it best: "But if you favorite team needs that break to beat the Bears, then maybe your favorite team isn't all that good."

 

[BigbadB]

The thing I wanted to see from Fields was making consistent quality throws with good footing from a strong pocket. There was maybe one of those? Every time he drops back into a nice pocket, he surveys the field and doesn't do anything but get sacked or scramble out of getting sacked and runs or then finds an open receiver downfield. Most of his downfield scramble throws are to someone completely wide open. I can only remember two challenge type throws, with one being the tight sideline throw to Mooney and to the other side to Kmet. 

He just isn't showing me he can be a pocket passer and we have a line creating a nice pocket to throw from. He should be seeing the receiver in his route getting ready to break open, but there is just no anticipation or recognition of the play and confidence to throw into that tight window. 

Maybe it's because they just don't want to risk a turnover, but to me, they are risking drives breaking down because of this. You can't wait 5 or 6 seconds for your receiver to be open by 10 yards on every play.

I'm not expecting him to be great in the pocket, but I need him to be adequate, and I'm not seeing it. I felt he had pretty solid protection today and most of the time, the plays were extended with his legs when standing pat in the pocket, going through his progressions and letting the ball rip should be the play. The apprehension is very real to me. That's a big flaw that maybe the OC just isn't able to coach out of him. This Sunday, they are going to need to be able to execute plays much faster than today or Myles Garrett will have a great day.

[raw]

55 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

The thing I wanted to see from Fields was making consistent quality throws with good footing from a strong pocket. There was maybe one of those? Every time he drops back into a nice pocket, he surveys the field and doesn't do anything but get sacked or scramble out of getting sacked and runs or then finds an open receiver downfield. Most of his downfield scramble throws are to someone completely wide open. I can only remember two challenge type throws, with one being the tight sideline throw to Mooney and to the other side to Kmet. 

He just isn't showing me he can be a pocket passer and we have a line creating a nice pocket to throw from. He should be seeing the receiver in his route getting ready to break open, but there is just no anticipation or recognition of the play and confidence to throw into that tight window. 

Maybe it's because they just don't want to risk a turnover, but to me, they are risking drives breaking down because of this. You can't wait 5 or 6 seconds for your receiver to be open by 10 yards on every play.

I'm not expecting him to be great in the pocket, but I need him to be adequate, and I'm not seeing it. I felt he had pretty solid protection today and most of the time, the plays were extended with his legs when standing pat in the pocket, going through his progressions and letting the ball rip should be the play. The apprehension is very real to me. That's a big flaw that maybe the OC just isn't able to coach out of him. This Sunday, they are going to need to be able to execute plays much faster than today or Myles Garrett will have a great day.

This is an odd analysis of yesterday, IMO. I thought he had one of his better games from the pocket. I think all 6 of DJs catches were Fields in the pocket. The dig route that he sailed over DJ was also from the pocket just a bad throw. A couple to Mooney were from the pocket. And you mentioned the Kmet one down the sidelines. 

He still 100% does what you described and he always will. In fact, I argued on Twitter yesterday that the Patrick holding penalty that brought back a big play was his fault for forcing the OL to block for 8+ seconds without throwing the ball. But anticipation isn't the end-all/be-all for a QB. Sure he needs to do more of it (does it some times), but many QBs are "see it before they throw it" guys. Cutler was. Deshaun Watson. I think Mahomes is for everyone but Kelce. The seeing it but not throwing it and not throwing it away when nobody is open are Fields' biggest issue. 

[raw]

18 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

No one will ever be happy with a short yardage playcall that doesn't work, but I have zero problem with going for it on that fourth down and I have zero problem flipping it to Moore, who is our best runner in space and scored our only touchdown of the game on an outside run.

 

Eh. In general, slow developing plays are bad ideas in short yardage. And I'd argue Fields is the best runner in space. But I get it, DJ is a very good runner in space as well, but I think you take some of that away by lining him up in the backfield on that play. 1. He's not a RB so that running in space is a little different. He has to run past where the front 7 is a factor which limits his effectiveness from that position simply because it's not what he's used to. 2. He's in the backfield, which is a unique situation that clues the defense in to be alert for him, especially after the earlier TD run.

16 hours ago, UK said:

I don't want to pay Johnson #1 money but this defense can win games, I dont want to dream too big but this defense would be elite with a better 3T.

 

 

Well, he's going to get it. Maybe they franchise tag him and hope Terrell Smith can take over for him in 2025, but I'd 100% pay him #1 CB money. It won't kill the team with likely a QB on a rookie contract for the life of the guaranteed money. 

[WrigleyField 22]

9 hours ago, UMFan83 said:

Disappointed to find out that due to tiebreakers and teams in the hunt playing each other, despite the Bears potentially being 1 game out of a playoff spot after tomorrow the earliest they can claim ownership of a playoff spot is after Week 17 (without ties being involved).

The tiebreakers wont be our friend with the Bears already losing the tiebreakers to Tampa Bay and New Orleans, tied vs. Minnesota, trailing 0-1 to GB.  We can win the tiebreaker against Atlanta, and can probably still win it with GB and Minnesota (too lazy to look that deeply into the 2nd and 3rd level tiebreakers).

Basically, I think the Bears need to win out to have a shot at the playoffs.  Finishing 8-9 will probably pull them even with one of the teams they lost the tiebreaker to.

The biggest game will be next week at Cleveland.  If they can get that they have a decent shot of getting to the GB game at 8-8 and perhaps a win and in scenario.

NYT has a great tracker for this FYI.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/upshot/chicago-bears-nfl-playoff-picture.html

Basically if they win out they have a 50% chance right now.

 

[BigSlick]

Fields didn’t show us anything new yesterday, but he did limit his mistakes and I think he was even a tad uncharacteristically inaccurate due to weather conditions/thumb/just not having a super accurate day. 
 

i just don’t think he can make the next step if he’s consistently dropping back, getting 5-6 seconds of protection, not liking what he’s seeing, and taking a sack (or, spinning wildly out of one, and maybe scrambling for a few or finding someone). The latter is great and all, but the former is all too common and disastrous to offensive consistency. The Oline protection broke down a couple times, but overall the protection was there. (I’m more concerned about the run blocking to be honest), I don’t think we can have a consistent offense if Fields isn’t ripping the ball faster - and that hasn’t changed much this year, to be honest. 

[17 Seconds]

13 hours ago, UMFan83 said:

 

93.2%!!!

just like the cubs' playoff odds

[raw]

30 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Fields didn’t show us anything new yesterday, but he did limit his mistakes and I think he was even a tad uncharacteristically inaccurate due to weather conditions/thumb/just not having a super accurate day. 
 

i just don’t think he can make the next step if he’s consistently dropping back, getting 5-6 seconds of protection, not liking what he’s seeing, and taking a sack (or, spinning wildly out of one, and maybe scrambling for a few or finding someone). The latter is great and all, but the former is all too common and disastrous to offensive consistency. The Oline protection broke down a couple times, but overall the protection was there. (I’m more concerned about the run blocking to be honest), I don’t think we can have a consistent offense if Fields isn’t ripping the ball faster - and that hasn’t changed much this year, to be honest. 

I mean, results wise, I think the bottom line is exactly what we hope/expect for Fields. 223 passing, 58 rushing (was 60 before kneel downs). That's a 3800/1000 pace over 17 game season. Didn't turn the ball over. Didn't really come all that close. Only took 1 bad sack. Also hanging onto the ball caused a 1st & 20 hole due to holding. Sure he missed some throws, mostly due to lack of touch on the ball, but I think Mooney could have caught 2 of them. IDK what happened on that Kmet play in the redzone, but probably moreso on Fields for missing that one.

Obviously, not a perfect game by any stretch. But he did minimize the negative plays. And it doesn't seem like he missed a whole lot of open players like usual or was late throwing to guys breaking open.

I feel like Fields has been around enough that we know what he can/can't do well. We know he can throw for 250-300 when protected and the coverage is lackluster. We know if the coverage is good, he can escape even with a spy and make a positive play. It's 100% to me about the lack of negative plays. And I think he did a good job limiting them today. Whether that style of play is good enough to be consistent offensively is another issue altogether.

[We Got The Whole 9]

Why is it so hard for him to throw the ball away when he's out of the tackle box? 

[mul21]

4 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Why is it so hard for him to throw the ball away when he's out of the tackle box? 

I think he's actually gotten much better at this.  His big issue is when he can't get out of the pocket he takes bad sacks.  He made really good throw away in the red zone on the second drive where they got the FG yesterday if I recall correctly.

[UMFan83]

So you’re saying there’s a chance?