rawaction

Yeah, I was just coming to post that I figured out what he was saying. THat was my biggest issue. UMFan was confusing me with what he was saying. I've run the playoff scenarios thru my head 100s of times. Actually, not thru my head, but actually outloud with all the idiots around here assuming the Bears aren't going to the playoffs now because Cutler's out.

No, what I said before is still true unless the Bears lose to the Seahawks. If the Bears beat Seattle, the common opponents tiebreaker is a virtual loss to Detroit. However, division record is still the higher tiebreaker, and the Lions and Bears are tied at 2-2. Unfortunately, the way it most likely plays out is that the Bears and Lions both beat Minnesota and lose to Green Bay, which would send the tiebreaker to common opponents. If the Bears do in fact lose to Seattle, there is still much to be decided. The Bears hold an edge in conference record (Bears: 6-3 with conference games between SEA, GB and MIN, Lions: 5-4 with conference games between NO, GB, MIN), and even with the Bears losing already to Seattle to get to this point, and the strong possibility of the Bears losing to GB to tie the division records w/Detroit, they would finish 7-5, which means the Lions have to beat NO this weekend to still be alive in that tiebreaker. (because they will lose to GB to tie the division record to make it to this point). So look at it this way: Tiebreaker #1 (Head to Head): The is guaranteed to be tied Tiebreaker #2 (Division record): This is likely to be tied 3-3 unless either Chicago or Detroit beats GB or loses to MIN) Tiebreaker #3 (Common Opponents): The Lions will win this unless the Bears lose to Seattle and otherwise remain tied in overall record. Tiebreaker #4 (Conference record): Still up in the air, but likely edge to Chicago if Detroit loses to New Orleans this weekend (because they likely will need to suffer another conference loss to GB in order to tie the division record tiebreaker). Tiebreaker #5 (Strength of victory): Way too many variables at play to tell who has the edge here. But what we know is that Chicago's victories have come against teams with a 31-46 overall record, while Detroit's have come against teams with a 32-46 record, so they currently have the slight edge with Chicago having the easier remaining schedule of the 2 teams (only GB and DEN have winning records, DET has NO, GB, OAK left). Tiebreaker 1, I got. Tiebreaker 2, I got also Tiebreaker 3, I don't got. Common games. - Tampa - Detroit won, Chicago won - Chiefs- Detroit won - Vikings - Detroit won, Chicago won - Atlanta- Detroit lost, Chicago won - Denver- Detroit won, - Green Bay- Detroit lost, Chicago lost - Carolina- Detroit won, Chicago won - Saints- Chicago lost - Oakland- Chicago lost - San Diego- Chicago won So far, Detroit is 5-2 in games both teams will play. Chicago is 5-3 in games both teams will play. If the Bears win vs. KC, Minn, and Denver...and lose to GB, that would be 8-4. If the Lions lose to the Saints and Packers, even if they beat SD, Minny, and Oakland that would make them 8-4 in common games. The only differences would be opposite results in each direction vs. Atlanta and Oakland. Even if the Bears lose to Seattle, they'd be 10-6 with Detroit at 10-6. Then the tiebreaker would go to conference record and the Bears would be 7-5 with Detroit 6-6. I think that's what UMFan is saying. If the Bears beat Seattle, then they cannot be tied with the Lions in the standings and also not have lost the common opponents tiebreker . They'll have either won all 3 games that you have them winning, which would put them at 11-5 and ahead of the Lions at 10-6. Or they'll lose one of those 3 games instead, which will put them tied with the Lions and 1 game back in the common opponents category. If they lose to Seattle, then they can tie in both record and common opponents as you've shown above. Then the bold part makes no sense.

Great, entertaining game. I know Hulls had 20 points and the biggest shot of the night. I know Zeller put the team on his back at times in the 2nd half. I know Oladipo turned it on late. But my game ball goes to Christian Watford. He finally played like an upperclassman. He really adjusted his game against a more athletic front line. Last year he would keep would keep trying to crossover quicker players and try to shoot 3s on slower/shorter players. I thought he did a good job taking the 3 when it was actually there. And I thought he did a great job using his strength advantage in the high post and on the baseline a couple times. He also decided in the 2nd half that he wasn't going to allow NC State to offensive rebound at will. Not to mention, he held NC State's best player to 10 points, and I think maybe 2 in the 2nd half. Crean did a great job in the 2nd half sticking with the guys that needed to be out on the floor. Elston, Roth, and Pritchard weren't providing anything on either side of the floor or the boards, they thankfully weren't near the floor late in the game. Good game all around for IU. Big win on the road. NC State isn't a great team, but this win is only going to build confidence to a class of players who have won like 2 games outside of the state in the last 4 years.

Can you live with yourself wearing a Cardinals undershirt?

Not according to the Playoff Machine on ESPN. There are several scenarios where the Lions, Bears, and Falcons are all 10-6 and the Bears are left out due to strength of victory tiebreakers. If it's just us and Atlanta at 10-6 and the Lions even at 11-5, it's better for the Bears. We have the tiebreak on ATL head to head, but when 3 teams are in it, there's some weird scenarios. If the Lions and Bears both finish 10-6 (and Atlanta better than 10-6), it is very likely that Detroit wins the tiebreaker with the Bears. The only way the Bears win it is if they can somehow beat GB or Detroit somehow loses to Minnesota. The most likely scenario is that the teams both split their remaining division games, both losing @ GB, and both winning @/vs. MIN. In that scenario, the Lions make it due to record vs. Common teams, which Detroit has already clinched. Explain to me how the Lions have clinched record vs. Common teams, considering two of the Bears' losses have been to teams Detroit hasn't played yet, and the Bears beat Atlanta. Or do you just mean that the Bears and Lions can't tie without the Lions winning the tiebreaker for common opponents? Because the Bears and Detroit can tie both if the Bears lose to Seattle and the Bears and Lions have the same record. This. The Bears essentially have a game in hand because they beat Atlanta, while Detroit did not. In order to even tie the Bears in this category, the Lions have to beat a team the Bears lost to. That means either New Orleans or Oakland. Green Bay doesn't count because if Detroit wins that game and the Bears lose again to GB, then it never gets to this tiebreaker in the first place.

The Bears beat Atlanta something like 30 to 12 in week 1. That's a common game. Dallas is the team Detroit played that the Bears don't. [expletive] I feel like a moron now. Thanks. OK, so the Bears can still tie that tiebreaker, but they'd have to lose at home to Seattle to do so. So, I'm confused. Since you were wrong, doesn't this mean the Bears get in in all 10-6 tiebreaker scenarios over the Lions or Falcons? Edit: not all, still be screwed if the Bears lose to Minnesota or GB and the Lions win 1 of those because of better division record. No, what I said before is still true unless the Bears lose to the Seahawks. If the Bears beat Seattle, the common opponents tiebreaker is a virtual loss to Detroit. However, division record is still the higher tiebreaker, and the Lions and Bears are tied at 2-2. Unfortunately, the way it most likely plays out is that the Bears and Lions both beat Minnesota and lose to Green Bay, which would send the tiebreaker to common opponents. If the Bears do in fact lose to Seattle, there is still much to be decided. The Bears hold an edge in conference record (Bears: 6-3 with conference games between SEA, GB and MIN, Lions: 5-4 with conference games between NO, GB, MIN), and even with the Bears losing already to Seattle to get to this point, and the strong possibility of the Bears losing to GB to tie the division records w/Detroit, they would finish 7-5, which means the Lions have to beat NO this weekend to still be alive in that tiebreaker. (because they will lose to GB to tie the division record to make it to this point). So look at it this way: Tiebreaker #1 (Head to Head): The is guaranteed to be tied Tiebreaker #2 (Division record): This is likely to be tied 3-3 unless either Chicago or Detroit beats GB or loses to MIN) Tiebreaker #3 (Common Opponents): The Lions will win this unless the Bears lose to Seattle and otherwise remain tied in overall record. Tiebreaker #4 (Conference record): Still up in the air, but likely edge to Chicago if Detroit loses to New Orleans this weekend (because they likely will need to suffer another conference loss to GB in order to tie the division record tiebreaker). Tiebreaker #5 (Strength of victory): Way too many variables at play to tell who has the edge here. But what we know is that Chicago's victories have come against teams with a 31-46 overall record, while Detroit's have come against teams with a 32-46 record, so they currently have the slight edge with Chicago having the easier remaining schedule of the 2 teams (only GB and DEN have winning records, DET has NO, GB, OAK left). Tiebreaker 1, I got. Tiebreaker 2, I got also Tiebreaker 3, I don't got. Common games. - Tampa - Detroit won, Chicago won - Chiefs- Detroit won - Vikings - Detroit won, Chicago won - Atlanta- Detroit lost, Chicago won - Denver- Detroit won, - Green Bay- Detroit lost, Chicago lost - Carolina- Detroit won, Chicago won - Saints- Chicago lost - Oakland- Chicago lost - San Diego- Chicago won So far, Detroit is 5-2 in games both teams will play. Chicago is 5-3 in games both teams will play. If the Bears win vs. KC, Minn, and Denver...and lose to GB, that would be 8-4. If the Lions lose to the Saints and Packers, even if they beat SD, Minny, and Oakland that would make them 8-4 in common games. The only differences would be opposite results in each direction vs. Atlanta and Oakland. Even if the Bears lose to Seattle, they'd be 10-6 with Detroit at 10-6. Then the tiebreaker would go to conference record and the Bears would be 7-5 with Detroit 6-6.

The Bears beat Atlanta something like 30 to 12 in week 1. That's a common game. Dallas is the team Detroit played that the Bears don't. [expletive] I feel like a moron now. Thanks. OK, so the Bears can still tie that tiebreaker, but they'd have to lose at home to Seattle to do so. So, I'm confused. Since you were wrong, doesn't this mean the Bears get in in all 10-6 tiebreaker scenarios over the Lions or Falcons? Edit: not all, still be screwed if the Bears lose to Minnesota or GB and the Lions win 1 of those because of better division record.

If 7-9 was going to do it then I think it was after year 6 when he was 7-9 for the second time in 3 years. The Bears aren't really a change for change's sake organization. Wanny had three straight sub .500 seasons. Jauron went 7-9 but that followed 4-12. Ditka went 5-11. At this point, back to back 7-9 seasons might do it, but one? I doubt it. Yeah, good points. You're probably right.

Hmm...I disagree about Lovie being anywhere near the hot seat. He's had his ups and downs, but he manages to take teams that experts don't think belong near the top of the league and keeps them playing hard, and really, beyond the level that most think they should be playing. I can see an argument for Angelo being on the hot seat, but I think Lovie's pretty safe, actually. Well I kind of think raw is right that he's one bad season away from the ax, but 7-9 isn't going to do it. 4-12 could cost him his job, but simply changing offensive systems shouldn't cause them to take such a step back. Eh, I don't know. He's at the point where he's tenured long enough that the team could just want an excuse to go in a different direction. Kinda like Andy Reid this year, Jeff Fisher last year, etc. Granted their teams were/are going to be worse than 7-9, but they also had longer success. I think an early playoff exit this year (if they make it in), a 7-9 season next year, combined with another possible Packers SB ring could cause the team to go in a different direction. And I agree changing offenses shouldn't cause a huge step back, but changing offenses + another bad draft + another year older for Urlacher, Briggs, Peppers and Tillman + how they handle the egos in these contract situations (Forte, Briggs, even players who will be FAs after this year) could help deter this team as early as next season. I'm probably being way to pessimistic, though as that would be absolute worst case scenario.

Not really thrilled with having 0 power at 1 of the corner spots, especially with no 1B or 3B (or LF really) in tow. He's on the wrong side of 30, coming off a subpar season. I do have faith in the front office that he's just a piece of the puzzle and not the major acquisition of the offseason, but the Cubs don't have enough good players yet for me to get excited about a role player.

Yeah, I've heard that. Don't really know what his qualifications are. Does Martz just say, "here's my playbook". Not sure how this would work. He's been a tight ends coach, offensive line coach, tight ends coach, head coach, assistant head coach and now line coach again. I think he's probably qualified in the general sense, but I fear he'd run a dumbed down version of this scheme and isn't very imaginative, or bright for that matter. Actually, he'd probably be more to Lovie's liking consisidering his history. I'd much rather prefer the guy who could be the next head coach (the next Sean Payton as raw said and as we said last time this position was available). Well, that brings up another issue too. Lovie and crew are still 1 bad season away from getting the axe, IMO. Do you risk starting from scratch this year, going 7-9 next year, and then needing an entire new coaching staff the year after? I definitely don't want Tice as OC, unless it's only as a figurehead like Lovie as DC. But I don't really want to start over just yet.

Yeah, I've heard that. Don't really know what his qualifications are. Does Martz just say, "here's my playbook". Not sure how this would work.

My issue isn't Cutler learning a new offense. It's more everyone else. If you believe some of the talking heads, Bennett has had issues in the past learning a new offense. Knox has had issues learning the Martz offense. It's pretty clear that the OL had issues with the protection schemes in the Martz offense last year and to start this year. I don't think the other 10 guys on the field (though probably shouldn't include Forte) really can handle another offense, the 3rd in 4 years for most of them. And like the rankings show, a complete revamp probably isn't necessary. I just feel everyone would be best served by not starting from scratch, though the guys on the offense for the most part are young enough to do so and still be in their primes when all systems are clicking.

I've been a nominal supporter of Martz from before they hired him. They needed an actual NFL caliber offensive coach, and he was/is one. I do not blame him for the garbage talent they have on offense (at receiver and line), and I think raw grossly overstates what he's had to work with. But he did run a quality tight end out of town and he has not maximized the talent of the players he does have. I do not like a coach that needs players to fit his system and refuses to tweak his system to fit the players. Martz was never going to be a longterm solution to the position. He was always going to be in-line for some head coaching position, and I think that college would be perfect for him. Martz stabilized the offense, but they will need somebody else to allow it to grow and actually get the most out of Cutler. Didn't mean to overstate the lack of talent. The Bears skilled position players and OL are bottom 1/4 in the league clearly, no question about that. But they are capable players, and people (not on here necessarily) act like they don't even have players with any ability whatsoever. And that was my issue with Martz. Never wanted him to begin with due to his stubborness and allowing his QBs to take hits, and I knew he wasn't going to be a long-term solution. I don't know if someone like Shane Day is capable, but he would be a good choice if he is. While I would like to completely revamp the offense with the next Sean Payton at OC....it doesn't really make sense to. The Bears are 16th in total offense and top 10 in points scored. A couple tweaks and a couple players would take this offense to a new level. 1 stud lineman, 1 better than replacement WR, and elimination of terrible play calls could make this team elite on offense.

You made some good points just now, but this I could not ignore. How is Forte merely a "fine" player? He's more elite than Cutler is, and I'm a very pro-Cutler person. Now I might buy that Cutler is more valuable to his team than Forte is, but that's an entirely different argument. Talent wise....Forte is not elite. Production is clearly elite. He's not super fast (Chris Johnson). He's not super elusive (Jamal Charles). He doesn't run over defenders (Peterson). Not a knock against Forte, because he's had an MVP type year, but I think his success is largely scheme influenced. Any RB with above average talent would be successful in this offense.

Honestly? YES. It took Cutler getting sacked 56 times in the regular season, leaving the game before the Superbowl with an injury, and 2 crappy showings in Week 2 and 3 on offense for Martz to finally start to protect his QB. He still makes questionable play calls. He still gets set in his ways and it hurts the team. I think the lack of talent on the Bears offense is severely overstated. I know it's not the Saints OL or Packers skilled position players on the roster, but the Bears have some young talent on offense. Cutler's the only elite talent, but Forte, Bennett, and Knox are fine players and would be contributors on any NFL team. The OL doesn't have any stars but Williams, Carimi and Spencer were all 1st round picks, Williams changed positions and played pretty well. Louis was a great find and has played strong all year. Webb was a late pick, but he's not short of talent being a former freshman starting OT for U of Texas. I just don't know that Martz is using all his players to the best of his ability. Obviously he wasn't with Olsen. He's not with Hester. May not even be with Cutler (having him in the pocket constantly). Of course, the next OC will probably be a Martz disciple or someone that won't change the offense too much....which would be fine if certain things were tweaked.

Good.

35 seconds plus a timeout and a couple inches for a first down (which would open up spiking it as an option). People panic about time when they should not. That is plenty of time to get off multiple attempts at the end zone, including at least one run. But the goal was to get points and go into half with a lead. Settling for a FG should have been considered satisfactory. LETS STOP PRETENDING THAT PLAY WASN'T DUMB AND TALK ABOUT THE CHIEFS GAME. Nobody is arguing that a FG wouldn't have been satisfactory. And yes, plenty of time to get multiple attempts at the endzone with 1 run....which is basically what I said. I'm not even sure what the point is anymore.

So, Matt Bowen knows more than Bill Belicheck who never played in the NFL? And I guess Ditka's word is the gospel. Hall of Fame player, coach, and analyst for the last 15 years?

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. First sentence, I already touched on. Everything is tight in the redzone. Isolating 1 receiver and 2 blockers on 2 defenders is loosing up the defense. Not really that hard of a concept. Rest of the post, time was running out in the half. They weren't going to be able to pound it 3 times and score. I will agree that they should have tried to run it at least once when they got down there, but the screen wasn't a bad call on 1st down. Should have been a throwaway, worst case scenario.

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.

Why is your map for Week 11?

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.

I'm hoping you spelled "OJ" wrong, and that 2nd sentence was just you confusing yourself by accidently putting CJ above.

As a Purdue fan, I think IU wins that game. They have a lot of talent. Zeller, Oladipo, and Sheehey especially. Oladipo might be the most underrated player in the conference. I don't know about most underrated. He was basically just an athlete last year. Thru 6 games this year, he has shown to be under much better control. He's not either trying to dunk or shoot a 25-footer every play anymore, so that's good. The thing with him and Sheehey playing under control this year is now they can stay on the court longer because they aren't committing stupid fouls or getting out of the flow of the offense. They are both averaging 5-8 minutes more this season so far. That makes this team more athletic and stronger defensively. Oladipo can match the quickness of the opposing PG/SG giving Hulls the easier matchup. Sheehey can match the athleticism of the best wing player for the opposition, giving Jones the easier matchup. That should keep Hulls and Jones fresher toward the end of the year, as they won't have to play 32 and 29 minutes per game respectively.