Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

WHY COULDN'T OUR WRs GET OPEN??
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22723
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
The first game deluded me as well as the coaches and the fact that we scored 41 is just a further indication that we should have taken the ball. Did some Brainiac think we were going to take the ball away from Rodgers? Rolling Eyes


Well yes…and we did…Rodgers isn’t some superhuman who is unbeatable…he is just a QB…a great QB sure but we have played better and beaten them too…the Packers only scored 16 points against us on offence…had our offence been even competent we would have been well in the game…the Packers aren't the juggernaut that you seem to think they are…as their other two games this season has proven.
We did not "take" the ball from Rodgers. You know I was speaking of a turnover not just stopping him. Even if we stopped him it did little good since their punter is so good there was no point to giving him the ball. It did NOTHING for us. And it will NEVER do anything unless there is a turnover.

Rodgers is as close to superhuman as it gets. It is EXTREMELY dangerous to allow him to get the ball first. The NFC Championship game showed how stupid it is to give him the ball first. We were down 14-0 after the first two series and the game was over.

GB is not at their best as of yet and getting robbed in Seattle is not going to help their opponents.


This argument got old like a week ago…scratch that…this argument never had merit whatsoever…giving a team the ball first is in no way the first step towards losing the game…why? Because you get the ball at the start of the 2nd half…as the above post points out if Belichick is always thinking of deferring then you should know your argument is wrong…

Rodgers is as close to superhuman as it gets? No…Rodgers isn’t as good as Manning was at his best…he isn’t as good as Brady was at his best…

And let’s get another thing straight…yeah it was a bad call they got against Seattle and yes they got screwed over…but they left themselves in a position to get screwed over because they only mustered 12 points…because “superman” currently has an average of 248 YPG passing…and a yards per attempt of 6.2 yards…that’s even lower than Jay’s 6.9 YPA…he has also only throw the same amount of TDs as Jay…real super.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2014…Lance Briggs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7925
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
The first game deluded me as well as the coaches and the fact that we scored 41 is just a further indication that we should have taken the ball. Did some Brainiac think we were going to take the ball away from Rodgers? Rolling Eyes


Well yes…and we did…Rodgers isn’t some superhuman who is unbeatable…he is just a QB…a great QB sure but we have played better and beaten them too…the Packers only scored 16 points against us on offence…had our offence been even competent we would have been well in the game…the Packers aren't the juggernaut that you seem to think they are…as their other two games this season has proven.
We did not "take" the ball from Rodgers. You know I was speaking of a turnover not just stopping him. Even if we stopped him it did little good since their punter is so good there was no point to giving him the ball. It did NOTHING for us. And it will NEVER do anything unless there is a turnover.

Rodgers is as close to superhuman as it gets. It is EXTREMELY dangerous to allow him to get the ball first. The NFC Championship game showed how stupid it is to give him the ball first. We were down 14-0 after the first two series and the game was over.

GB is not at their best as of yet and getting robbed in Seattle is not going to help their opponents.


This argument got old like a week ago…scratch that…this argument never had merit whatsoever…giving a team the ball first is in no way the first step towards losing the game…why? Because you get the ball at the start of the 2nd half…as the above post points out if Belichick is always thinking of deferring then you should know your argument is wrong… Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.

Rodgers is as close to superhuman as it gets? No…Rodgers isn’t as good as Manning was at his best…he isn’t as good as Brady was at his best… Rodgers was as good last year as any QB ever was.

And let’s get another thing straight…yeah it was a bad call they got against Seattle and yes they got screwed over…but they left themselves in a position to get screwed over because they only mustered 12 points…because “superman” currently has an average of 248 YPG passing…and a yards per attempt of 6.2 yards…that’s even lower than Jay’s 6.9 YPA…he has also only throw the same amount of TDs as Jay…real super.
Perfection fades fast some times.

My guess is we wouldn't score a lot more against Seattle if we played them there and that we won't put up a lot of points here when we play them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22723
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2014…Lance Briggs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7925
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19216
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.
Except they don't, it keeps getting said over and over again, the majority of the time teams win the toss they defer, yet you have it stuck in your head the opposite is true.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22723
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.


OK so you know what Belichick would do more so than Belichick himself does when he has been quoted saying it? No…no you don’t…

And as sup said your theory that 90% of the winning teams take the ball first is a mile off.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2014…Lance Briggs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronMike84


Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 7120
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
IronMike84 wrote:
The defense is vastly outperforming the offense right now. What does it matter if they defer? Why wouldn't you want your best unit on the field first to make a statement early?
The defense did NOT "vastly outperform the offense" in the only game we had played. In fact, it did not outperform it at all. So if you want to base your plan on actual performance you take the ball.

What's it matter if the Bears defer when their offense has zero chemistry right now? I think you're trying to make something out of very little right here.
_________________
Rotoworld.com wrote:
...internet mock drafts, which have ridiculously become the measuring stick for where players are "supposed" to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7925
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.
Except they don't, it keeps getting said over and over again, the majority of the time teams win the toss they defer, yet you have it stuck in your head the opposite is true.
That is what my eyes see. Even the Bears do not defer the majority of times or even close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7925
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.


OK so you know what Belichick would do more so than Belichick himself does when he has been quoted saying it? No…no you don’t… Nice straw man. Belichick said NOTHING about a specific game and you know it.

And as sup said your theory that 90% of the winning teams take the ball first is a mile off.
How many times did the Bears defer the last two years? A handful. Sup can SAY whatever he likes but I have watched too many games for too many years to believe it.

If getting or not getting the ball is meaningless then why would you bother to defer? Your claim that it has no bearing EVER is refuted by the fact that the choice is not randomly made to defer but deliberately made.

Besides in deferring you are not assured of getting the ball on a kickoff. All you are doing is choosing a goal to defend the other team is not forced to kickoff.

Nor am I saying never to defer, just against Rodgers and Brady. Most of the time it does not matter, but sometimes it does.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7925
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IronMike84 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
IronMike84 wrote:
The defense is vastly outperforming the offense right now. What does it matter if they defer? Why wouldn't you want your best unit on the field first to make a statement early?
The defense did NOT "vastly outperform the offense" in the only game we had played. In fact, it did not outperform it at all. So if you want to base your plan on actual performance you take the ball.

What's it matter if the Bears defer when their offense has zero chemistry right now? I think you're trying to make something out of very little right here.
Actually that is the reason, I don't want this team to have to play from behind because they are not a mature offense yet. Lovie's wins largely come from playing with a lead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19216
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Superman(DH23) wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.
Except they don't, it keeps getting said over and over again, the majority of the time teams win the toss they defer, yet you have it stuck in your head the opposite is true.
That is what my eyes see. Even the Bears do not defer the majority of times or even close.
LOL, the Bears nearly defer all the time they win the toss. Just b/c the Bears receive doesn't mean they won the toss, as a matter of fact if they do receive they probably didn't.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 19216
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.


OK so you know what Belichick would do more so than Belichick himself does when he has been quoted saying it? No…no you don’t… Nice straw man. Belichick said NOTHING about a specific game and you know it.

And as sup said your theory that 90% of the winning teams take the ball first is a mile off.
How many times did the Bears defer the last two years? A handful. Sup can SAY whatever he likes but I have watched too many games for too many years to believe it.

If getting or not getting the ball is meaningless then why would you bother to defer? Your claim that it has no bearing EVER is refuted by the fact that the choice is not randomly made to defer but deliberately made.

Besides in deferring you are not assured of getting the ball on a kickoff. All you are doing is choosing a goal to defend the other team is not forced to kickoff.

Nor am I saying never to defer, just against Rodgers and Brady. Most of the time it does not matter, but sometimes it does.
Do you know the rules of the toss at all? Let me explain how this works to you. You win the toss you have the choice to kick, receive, or defer the choice to the 2nd half. If you choose to kick, guess what, you have given the opponents 2 guaranteed possessions b/c unless the coach is an idiot he's going to get the ball first at the beginning of both haves, that's why no coach (unless they are Marty Mohrninweg) would EVER choose to kick. If you defer you are not choosing to kick, you are choosing to defer the choice to the 2nd half, which means instead of excersing your option to kick/receive at the beginning of the game, you can choose to kick/receive at the beginning of the 2nd half. Since again, no coach (other than Marty Mohrninweg) is a complete moron, if you defer you will choose to receive the ball at the beginning of the 2nd half. So yes...if you had the dumbest coach in the history of the game (Marty Mohrninweg) you could potentially not receive the ball on a kickoff by deferring, but only the same way you could by winning the toss and electing to kick rather than receive. IOW it would never happen, not in a million years (unless somebody is dumb enough to give Marty Mohrninweg another HC job). The coin toss is virtually meaningless unless there are extreme weather conditions, or its overtime, and w/ the new overtime rules its not important as it used to be.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
2014 Adopt-A-Bear Alshon Jeffery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
IronMike84


Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Posts: 7120
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
IronMike84 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
IronMike84 wrote:
The defense is vastly outperforming the offense right now. What does it matter if they defer? Why wouldn't you want your best unit on the field first to make a statement early?
The defense did NOT "vastly outperform the offense" in the only game we had played. In fact, it did not outperform it at all. So if you want to base your plan on actual performance you take the ball.

What's it matter if the Bears defer when their offense has zero chemistry right now? I think you're trying to make something out of very little right here.
Actually that is the reason, I don't want this team to have to play from behind because they are not a mature offense yet. Lovie's wins largely come from playing with a lead.

Until the Bears show that they can sustain drives and are a threat to score at any time, it doesn't matter to me if they defer. I'd rather see the Bears defense start strong than see the offense go three-and-out right off the bat.
_________________
Rotoworld.com wrote:
...internet mock drafts, which have ridiculously become the measuring stick for where players are "supposed" to go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Madmike90


Joined: 25 Jan 2009
Posts: 22723
Location: Scotland
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Madmike90 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
Perhaps the concept of timing means nothing to you but it does to winning coaches.


This statement doesn't even make sense...Perhaps not to one defending the indefensible. I'm the one who is agreeing with Belichick that deferring has little impact on the game because you get the ball first in the 2nd half...you are the one disagreeing with a winning coach and maybe the best coach of all time...clearly the concept is something you are struggling with.
If Belichick was coaching the Bears today against the Pack he would never have deferred. It doesn't matter what he says as a matter of theory. And he didn't say deferring has NO impact only that it has "little" impact. In games like this a "little" impact can be the difference between winning and losing.

Besides if it didn't matter at all there would be no need to flip the coin or call "heads" or "tails" just assign the kick to one team or the other. There is a good reason 90+% of the winners of the toss take the ball.


OK so you know what Belichick would do more so than Belichick himself does when he has been quoted saying it? No…no you don’t… Nice straw man. Belichick said NOTHING about a specific game and you know it.

And as sup said your theory that 90% of the winning teams take the ball first is a mile off.
How many times did the Bears defer the last two years? A handful. Sup can SAY whatever he likes but I have watched too many games for too many years to believe it.

If getting or not getting the ball is meaningless then why would you bother to defer? Your claim that it has no bearing EVER is refuted by the fact that the choice is not randomly made to defer but deliberately made.

Besides in deferring you are not assured of getting the ball on a kickoff. All you are doing is choosing a goal to defend the other team is not forced to kickoff.

Nor am I saying never to defer, just against Rodgers and Brady. Most of the time it does not matter, but sometimes it does.


This is like talking to a brick wall so let me leave it at this…the fact you are going against my opinion and others on this board is fine…the fact you are going against the opinion of the greatest HC in NFL history is stupid.
_________________
Adopt-a-Bear 2014…Lance Briggs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChicagoAl


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 7925
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IronMike84 wrote:
ChicagoAl wrote:
IronMike84 wrote:
The defense is vastly outperforming the offense right now. What does it matter if they defer? Why wouldn't you want your best unit on the field first to make a statement early?
The defense did NOT "vastly outperform the offense" in the only game we had played. In fact, it did not outperform it at all. So if you want to base your plan on actual performance you take the ball.

What's it matter if the Bears defer when their offense has zero chemistry right now? I think you're trying to make something out of very little right here.
The idea of giving Rodgers the ball first drove me nuts in the NFC Championship Game and still does.

And at kickoff our offense had put points up in its only game, it certainly was not clear that it had zero chemistry at that point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Chicago Bears All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group