2010-11 Chicago Bears: The Last Time You'll See Utler Alive

[Yeti]

So Lovie Smith.

I'm guessing this was the week that Lovie decided to hand out lessons. He benched Harris and Aromashadu (and apparently Harris wants out of Chicago now). He benched Forte for a spell as Chet had a good chunk of playing time in the first half. Then he benched Bowman for what I assume was a missed tackle. He also benched Shaffer and brought in Webb at tackle.

I think the thing about Lovie is he still has no clue how to manage timeouts and challenges (he gets too caught up in the moment and doesn't think long term) and he certainly doesn't have that loud, angry style that idiots seem to think better motivates players (it doesn't). But he does hold people accountable and for that I am pleased. I think we all agree that Tommie Harris has had a free pass for a long, long time and Lovie is tired of it. Clearly the Bears didn't miss him much last night. The Packers didn't run the ball for shit and there was certainly a fair amount of pressure on Rodgers, at least not so little that someone like Harris would have made much of a difference.

I guess what I'm saying is there are some glaring weaknesses in Lovie's coaching abilities but clearly there are some strengths.

Timeout and challenge managing inadequacies can be said for alot of coaches, case in point Mike Mccarthy.

I think now that Lovie's job is on the line he is no longer complacent like he was after the Super Bowl appearance. He is coaching like he did when first got here; holding players accountable, playing the best players, and taking more chances.

Actually, last night, Lovie used a challange that was pretty much spot on for the situation.  He didn't win it, but it was close enough.

It was the Bennett completetion at teh goal-line on third down int he third quarter.  The Bears were going to call a time-out anyway, but instead of the time-out, Lovie challenged the play.  The only thing he had to lose was teh challenge, leaving them with only 1.

Maybe Lovie is learning.

Yea. I wasn't completely opposed to the challenge.

I did read something one time (that I'm unable to find) that showed Lovie was right around league average in challenges, and among the bottom feeders was Bill Belichek... Also, the leader: Tom Coughlin, 47%.

[Eli]

Luck obviously. Because the Packers decided it would be fun to give up two long punt returns and fumble fuck a final drive away. How often can you count on that happening?

And how often is the other team going to miss all of those should-be INTs?  Cutler could have realistically thrown 26 or 27 interceptions last night, since there were actual Packer defenders standing on the field as he was throwing those passes.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Actually, last night, Lovie used a challange that was pretty much spot on for the situation.  He didn't win it, but it was close enough.

It was the Bennett completetion at teh goal-line on third down int he third quarter.  The Bears were going to call a time-out anyway, but instead of the time-out, Lovie challenged the play.  The only thing he had to lose was teh challenge, leaving them with only 1.

Maybe Lovie is learning.

Actually, losing the challenge left them with 0 challenges since the Bears had to challenge the horrible non-call on the Gritty White Guy Run earlier in the game where Kuhn picked up an extra 10-15 yards after being clearly down by contact.

That said, I think you're right on the broader point. That was a good, high-leverage challenge by Lovie even if it didn't go his way.

[CT III]

He also benched Shaffer and brought in Webb at tackle.

Actually, word from Mulligan and Biggs is that Shaffer wasn't benched, but that the coaches planned to rotate Webb in for some playing time.

Basically, the theory is that Williams injury is worse than they're letting on, and if another tackle gets hurt they don't want to throw Webb into fray completely cold.

[Internet Apex]

He also benched Shaffer and brought in Webb at tackle.

Actually, word from Mulligan and Biggs is that Shaffer wasn't benched, but that the coaches planned to rotate Webb in for some playing time.

Basically, the theory is that Williams injury is worse than their letting on, and if another tackle gets hurt they don't want to throw Webb into fray completely cold.

Another theory is that Williams himself is worse than they're letting on.

[Quality Start Machine]

Luck obviously. Because the Packers decided it would be fun to give up two long punt returns and fumble fuck a final drive away. How often can you count on that happening?

And how often is the other team going to miss all of those should-be INTs?  Cutler could have realistically thrown 26 or 27 interceptions last night, since there were actual Packer defenders standing on the field as he was throwing those passes.

Yeah, but did those defenders pick anyone?

[SKO]

Luck obviously. Because the Packers decided it would be fun to give up two long punt returns and fumble fuck a final drive away. How often can you count on that happening?

And how often is the other team going to miss all of those should-be INTs?  Cutler could have realistically thrown 26 or 27 interceptions last night, since there were actual Packer defenders standing on the field as he was throwing those passes.

That's my favorite. "The old Cutler was back last night. He threw a lot of interceptions that were waved off." Hey, have you considered the first pick that was waved off was only a bad throw because someone turned his helmet backwards as he was throwing it? Or that the second one was a pass he only threw because he knew that Bennett was being mugged before he ever even threw it? Jesus Christ, people.

[Lance Dicksons Arm]

So Lovie Smith.

I'm guessing this was the week that Lovie decided to hand out lessons. He benched Harris and Aromashadu (and apparently Harris wants out of Chicago now). He benched Forte for a spell as Chet had a good chunk of playing time in the first half. Then he benched Bowman for what I assume was a missed tackle. He also benched Shaffer and brought in Webb at tackle.

I think the thing about Lovie is he still has no clue how to manage timeouts and challenges (he gets too caught up in the moment and doesn't think long term) and he certainly doesn't have that loud, angry style that idiots seem to think better motivates players (it doesn't). But he does hold people accountable and for that I am pleased. I think we all agree that Tommie Harris has had a free pass for a long, long time and Lovie is tired of it. Clearly the Bears didn't miss him much last night. The Packers didn't run the ball for shit and there was certainly a fair amount of pressure on Rodgers, at least not so little that someone like Harris would have made much of a difference.

I guess what I'm saying is there are some glaring weaknesses in Lovie's coaching abilities but clearly there are some strengths.

I also think we have to give him some begrudging respect. As much as the 700 slants they allow are maddeningly frustrating, the scheme worked and they held when it mattered and forced the Packers to use up a lot of time to get practically nothing on the scoreboard. Against less talented quarterbacks and less jersey-hugging offensive lines that defense is going to be even more effective.

Agreed to a point...it worked last night, and it will work on a lot of Sundays.  The Packers would have had at least 14 more points on the board if not for the penalty festival that broke out, especially in the second quarter.   Not to piss on a solid professional effort by the Bears defense, but most of the time...teams like the Packers, Colts, Patriots, and Saints will beat you if you don't make a few more plays throughout the game.   Last night was one of those exceptions.

I was stunned at how conservative the Packers were in their passing game last night.  They took very few shots down field, and almost never did on first or second down. I thought the Packers playcalling left much to be desired.

Also, if you're going to run these 6-8 yard curls (I'm looking at you Donald Driver...9 catches for 68 yards), you can't continuously lose YAC.

[Yeti]

Agreed to a point...it worked last night, and it will work on a lot of Sundays.  The Packers would have had at least 14 more points on the board if not for the penalty festival that broke out, especially in the second quarter.   Not to piss on a solid professional effort by the Bears defense, but most of the time...teams like the Packers, Colts, Patriots, and Saints will beat you if you don't make a few more plays throughout the game.   Last night was one of those exceptions.

Not to pick on you per se (since you have got yourself a nice little beating in these parts lately), I think we should put to rest that whole "The _____ would have had at least ___ more points if not _______." thing. It happens in every game. The Bears could have had 3 more points on the board if not for the missed FG by Gould. Or The Bears could have had 7 more points on the board if not for the Cutler INT poor route running of the receivers (I don't remember who that pass was intended for).

My main point is that there are a shit-ton of "ifs" but if those things would have happened then each subsequent event in the game would have changed. The Bears won. They're 3-0, and they are atop the NFC, biatches. Fuck all. Go Cutler. Go Urlacher. /reinserts Urlacher's dong in ass, Cutler's dong in mouth

[SKO]

So Lovie Smith.

I'm guessing this was the week that Lovie decided to hand out lessons. He benched Harris and Aromashadu (and apparently Harris wants out of Chicago now). He benched Forte for a spell as Chet had a good chunk of playing time in the first half. Then he benched Bowman for what I assume was a missed tackle. He also benched Shaffer and brought in Webb at tackle.

I think the thing about Lovie is he still has no clue how to manage timeouts and challenges (he gets too caught up in the moment and doesn't think long term) and he certainly doesn't have that loud, angry style that idiots seem to think better motivates players (it doesn't). But he does hold people accountable and for that I am pleased. I think we all agree that Tommie Harris has had a free pass for a long, long time and Lovie is tired of it. Clearly the Bears didn't miss him much last night. The Packers didn't run the ball for shit and there was certainly a fair amount of pressure on Rodgers, at least not so little that someone like Harris would have made much of a difference.

I guess what I'm saying is there are some glaring weaknesses in Lovie's coaching abilities but clearly there are some strengths.

I also think we have to give him some begrudging respect. As much as the 700 slants they allow are maddeningly frustrating, the scheme worked and they held when it mattered and forced the Packers to use up a lot of time to get practically nothing on the scoreboard. Against less talented quarterbacks and less jersey-hugging offensive lines that defense is going to be even more effective.

Agreed to a point...it worked last night, and it will work on a lot of Sundays.  The Packers would have had at least 14 more points on the board if not for the penalty festival that broke out, especially in the second quarter.   Not to piss on a solid professional effort by the Bears defense, but most of the time...teams like the Packers, Colts, Patriots, and Saints will beat you if you don't make a few more plays throughout the game.   Last night was one of those exceptions.

I was stunned at how conservative the Packers were in their passing game last night.  They took very few shots down field, and almost never did on first or second down. I thought the Packers playcalling left much to be desired.

Also, if you're going to run these 6-8 yard curls (I'm looking at you Donald Driver...9 catches for 68 yards), you can't continuously lose YAC.

1. The penalty festival broke out because Green Bay couldn't block Julius Peppers to save their life. Holds are positive plays by the defense. Offensive linemen don't just hold for the fucking hell of it.

2. The Packers didn't take more shots downfield because they weren't there. As much as we rip on the Cover 2 when it doesn't work..last night it did. There were no big plays to be had. The Bears did what they had to do to contain Rodgers and they made plays when it they needed them. That's it. The Bears won the fucking game. They won it. They beat Green Bay. They forced Green Bay's offensive line into holding on for dear life to keep Rodgers from getting killed. The Bears won the point of attack and blocked the field goal. The Bears scored when they had the ball, Green Bay didn't. Time of possession is nice, but it's not always necessary. Green Bay left points on the field, this is true. So did Chicago. Good teams win games like this. Bad teams (or less good teams) don't.

[Lance Dicksons Arm]

Agreed to a point...it worked last night, and it will work on a lot of Sundays.  The Packers would have had at least 14 more points on the board if not for the penalty festival that broke out, especially in the second quarter.   Not to piss on a solid professional effort by the Bears defense, but most of the time...teams like the Packers, Colts, Patriots, and Saints will beat you if you don't make a few more plays throughout the game.   Last night was one of those exceptions.

Not to pick on you per se (since you have got yourself a nice little beating in these parts lately), I think we should put to rest that whole "The _____ would have had at least ___ more points if not _______." thing. It happens in every game. The Bears could have had 3 more points on the board if not for the missed FG by Gould. Or The Bears could have had 7 more points on the board if not for the Cutler INT poor route running of the receivers (I don't remember who that pass was intended for).

My main point is that there are a shit-ton of "ifs" but if those things would have happened then each subsequent event in the game would have changed. The Bears won. They're 3-0, and they are atop the NFC, biatches. Fuck all. Go Cutler. Go Urlacher. /reinserts Urlacher's dong in ass, Cutler's dong in mouth

If you want to live in a world where you grade or evaluate based solely on what happened in one game, and totally disregard "what would normally happen", go for it.   I think it's foolish, but that's just me.

I don't think anyone's implying that the Bears didn't deserve to win last night.  

[SKO]

Agreed to a point...it worked last night, and it will work on a lot of Sundays.  The Packers would have had at least 14 more points on the board if not for the penalty festival that broke out, especially in the second quarter.   Not to piss on a solid professional effort by the Bears defense, but most of the time...teams like the Packers, Colts, Patriots, and Saints will beat you if you don't make a few more plays throughout the game.   Last night was one of those exceptions.

Not to pick on you per se (since you have got yourself a nice little beating in these parts lately), I think we should put to rest that whole "The _____ would have had at least ___ more points if not _______." thing. It happens in every game. The Bears could have had 3 more points on the board if not for the missed FG by Gould. Or The Bears could have had 7 more points on the board if not for the Cutler INT poor route running of the receivers (I don't remember who that pass was intended for).

My main point is that there are a shit-ton of "ifs" but if those things would have happened then each subsequent event in the game would have changed. The Bears won. They're 3-0, and they are atop the NFC, biatches. Fuck all. Go Cutler. Go Urlacher. /reinserts Urlacher's dong in ass, Cutler's dong in mouth

If you want to live in a world where you grade or evaluate based solely on what happened in one game, and totally disregard "what would normally happen", go for it.   I think it's foolish, but that's just me.

I don't think anyone's implying that the Bears didn't deserve to win last night.  

You mean Here, right? No one's implying it here? Because that's ALL anyone is implying on ESPN or any other media outlet.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

So Lovie Smith.

I'm guessing this was the week that Lovie decided to hand out lessons. He benched Harris and Aromashadu (and apparently Harris wants out of Chicago now). He benched Forte for a spell as Chet had a good chunk of playing time in the first half. Then he benched Bowman for what I assume was a missed tackle. He also benched Shaffer and brought in Webb at tackle.

I think the thing about Lovie is he still has no clue how to manage timeouts and challenges (he gets too caught up in the moment and doesn't think long term) and he certainly doesn't have that loud, angry style that idiots seem to think better motivates players (it doesn't). But he does hold people accountable and for that I am pleased. I think we all agree that Tommie Harris has had a free pass for a long, long time and Lovie is tired of it. Clearly the Bears didn't miss him much last night. The Packers didn't run the ball for shit and there was certainly a fair amount of pressure on Rodgers, at least not so little that someone like Harris would have made much of a difference.

I guess what I'm saying is there are some glaring weaknesses in Lovie's coaching abilities but clearly there are some strengths.

I also think we have to give him some begrudging respect. As much as the 700 slants they allow are maddeningly frustrating, the scheme worked and they held when it mattered and forced the Packers to use up a lot of time to get practically nothing on the scoreboard. Against less talented quarterbacks and less jersey-hugging offensive lines that defense is going to be even more effective.

Agreed to a point...it worked last night, and it will work on a lot of Sundays.  The Packers would have had at least 14 more points on the board if not for the penalty festival that broke out, especially in the second quarter.   Not to piss on a solid professional effort by the Bears defense, but most of the time...teams like the Packers, Colts, Patriots, and Saints will beat you if you don't make a few more plays throughout the game.   Last night was one of those exceptions.

I was stunned at how conservative the Packers were in their passing game last night.  They took very few shots down field, and almost never did on first or second down. I thought the Packers playcalling left much to be desired.

Also, if you're going to run these 6-8 yard curls (I'm looking at you Donald Driver...9 catches for 68 yards), you can't continuously lose YAC.

1. The penalty festival broke out because Green Bay couldn't block Julius Peppers to save their life. Holds are positive plays by the defense. Offensive linemen don't just hold for the fucking hell of it.

2. The Packers didn't take more shots downfield because they weren't there. As much as we rip on the Cover 2 when it doesn't work..last night it did. There were no big plays to be had. The Bears did what they had to do to contain Rodgers and they made plays when it they needed them. That's it. The Bears won the fucking game. They won it. They beat Green Bay. They forced Green Bay's offensive line into holding on for dear life to keep Rodgers from getting killed. The Bears won the point of attack and blocked the field goal. The Bears scored when they had the ball, Green Bay didn't. Time of possession is nice, but it's not always necessary. Green Bay left points on the field, this is true. So did Chicago. Good teams win games like this. Bad teams (or less good teams) don't.

All of that.

[Lance Dicksons Arm]

1. The penalty festival broke out because Green Bay couldn't block Julius Peppers to save their life. Holds are positive plays by the defense. Offensive linemen don't just hold for the fucking hell of it.

2. The Packers didn't take more shots downfield because they weren't there. As much as we rip on the Cover 2 when it doesn't work..last night it did. There were no big plays to be had. The Bears did what they had to do to contain Rodgers and they made plays when it they needed them. That's it. The Bears won the fucking game. They won it. They beat Green Bay. They forced Green Bay's offensive line into holding on for dear life to keep Rodgers from getting killed. The Bears won the point of attack and blocked the field goal. The Bears scored when they had the ball, Green Bay didn't. Time of possession is nice, but it's not always necessary. Green Bay left points on the field, this is true. So did Chicago. Good teams win games like this. Bad teams (or less good teams) don't.

Peppers was a contributing factor and had a great game, but let's not go overboard here.  As someone who likes the Colts, and has watched Freeney and Mathis play for 5 seasons...they generally don't single-handedly compel a team into that many penalties.  In fact, I don't recall it happening once in their entire time in Indy.  I don't know...has Fork ever seen anything quite like that happen with those great Giants d-lines? 

Peppers had a great game last night, but there are 10 other linemen in football who can be that disruptive...and it almost never yields 17 total penalties.  Sometimes linemen hold because they think they can get away with it, it's not ALWAYS out of pure necessity.  Most of the time, they do get away with it. 

I think their short passes were by design as much as the Bears forced them to check down or throw early.  Had they not kept grabbing jerseys and ending up in 3rd and 16, it likely would have worked.  BTW, Rodgers wasn't sacked at all last night...and while I would agree that's not an accurate indicator of the Bears pressure on him...I think zero sacks also forfeits any ability to claim that the pressure caused him to absolutely not go down the field.

I'm not following your last point.  Are you implying that Green Bay isn't a good team?

[Indolent Reader]

Not to get all meatbally here, but I think Da Fannssss had a bit to do with some of the penalties.