This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There were two balls I remember that could have been easily intercepted. Both times they bounced off the saftey's (DeCoud's?) hands. I remember making the comment "that's why he's at DB and not WR". The best one was the one in the endzone where it bounced off his hands/facemask then he kicked it with his foot on the way down. Ahh the grace of professional athletes
On both balls Cutler tried to squeeze the ball into a very tight if existent window. The ball was tipped by one defender and Decoud couldn't corral it each time. If I recall correctly, one of the four sacks was Cutler basically taking a knee near the sideline to kill the clock. Both tackles has some issues as Webb was called for holding twice on run plays and was beaten bad at least twice and Carimi was bull rushed badly a time or two and was beaten for a couple sacks. However, Cutler had plenty of time a majority of the game. The amount of pressure the Falcons got on Cutler was no where near what Matt Ryan dealt with all game. It is one of those instances where the sack numbers don't tell the story.There were two balls I remember that could have been easily intercepted. Both times they bounced off the saftey's (DeCoud's?) hands. I remember making the comment "that's why he's at DB and not WR". The best one was the one in the endzone where it bounced off his hands/facemask then he kicked it with his foot on the way down. Ahh the grace of professional athletes
Indeed I did. Typing on the phone I get sloppy (and lazy).Since I've taken it upon myself to be an unbearable logic/grammar **** today, couldn't let this one go by.If the two are mutually exclusive, then they cannot both be true at the same time. However, I think you meant to say that these two things are NOT mutually exclusive (i.e., a fan can be critical of the franchise, while also wanting the team to win).Have to agree; criticizing the franchise and wanting the team to win are mutually exclusive. The sad fact is that for some fans criticism=treason but what they should know is that some of us cannot accept that 25 years without a championship is due to chance/the regular accidents of running a team. More to the point, we think they haven't won because they are mismanaged. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally make good or even great moves, such as signing Peppers. It does mean we have less tolerance for incompetence, real or perceived.Is this how this is going to go now after every Bears victory or defeat? A bunch of Bears fans arguing with other Bears fans about how stupid they look for criticizing the infallible front office? If a couple of you will look back, most of the ones who have criticized the Bears for poor front office decisions have also praised them for good decisions. Seeing things objectively and unbiased doesn't mean we don't want the Bears to win.This place didn't used to be like this.
your word choice at the end is rather confusingobjective: something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target'SeveredHorseHeads said:'flapgreen said:what'SeveredHorseHeads said:Is this how this is going to go now after every Bears victory or defeat? A bunch of Bears fans arguing with other Bears fans about how stupid they look for criticizing the infallible front office? If a couple of you will look back, most of the ones who have criticized the Bears for poor front office decisions have also praised them for good decisions. Seeing things objectively and unbiased doesn't mean we don't want the Bears to win.Sorry, you were a giant crybaby during the preseason. Now you are getting called out. If you don't want to be held accountable, don't press "Add Reply."
I don't think you were
objection: a reason or argument offered in disagreement, opposition, refusal, or disapproval.
Um, there's more than one meaning for the word objective, and he was clearly referencing flapgreen's claim of "seeing things objectively." Maybe check all of those out before trying the old "post the definition" maneuver?
I'm not saying it's an easy win, or a win at all. The fact is they were underdogs at home to Atlanta, and kicked their ### all over the field. 6.5 seems like a lot after that to me.
Any all you do is whine about other people whining...that with a few insults thrown in. Think you could add something of use to the thread? I'll hang up and listen.
Fair enough, my mistake if that is the case (and after careful re-reading I'll agree with you that it probably is). However, the way the last line was worded was a little unclear to at least myself and flapgreen, if no one else. Sorry if my reply bothered you or offended SeveredHorseHeads, and Kudos to your reading comprehension Destro!your word choice at the end is rather confusingobjective: something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target'SeveredHorseHeads said:'flapgreen said:what'SeveredHorseHeads said:Is this how this is going to go now after every Bears victory or defeat? A bunch of Bears fans arguing with other Bears fans about how stupid they look for criticizing the infallible front office? If a couple of you will look back, most of the ones who have criticized the Bears for poor front office decisions have also praised them for good decisions. Seeing things objectively and unbiased doesn't mean we don't want the Bears to win.
I don't think you were
objection: a reason or argument offered in disagreement, opposition, refusal, or disapproval.
Years of futility?Let's see...since 2005, 2 11-5 seasons, 1 13-3 season, 1 9-7, 2 7-9, 1 NFC championship game, 1 SB game.How exactly is that years of futility? 2 barely losing seasons out of 6, and 3 double digit win seasons. How many teams have that kind of track record in the past few years of futility? I do agree that it's all based on biased perception. I was going to be happy if the bears won 1 out of the first 3 games. I will be ecstatic if they win 2 out of the first 3. They easily can win 3 out of the next 4. (Panthers, Lions, Vikings, Bucs), 2 in November (eagles, lions, chargers, raiders), and 4 out of the last 5 (chiefs, broncos, seahawks, packers, vikings)So they very well could be a 10-11 win team again this year, and if they do, they'll still be called the worst playoff team in the league...again.Well, whatever...bear down mofos. We're gonna sneak up on you.
I'm not arguing that they had years of futility, although I'd say 5 playoff appearances in almost the last 20 years would be classified as "years of futility" by most. I'm trying to give a reason why the media usually picks against the Bears when they're playing difficult opponents. They've been an afterthought in the league for many years to most outside of Chicago. With big names like Cutler and Urlacher still around, I think the media and football fans in general are finally starting to take the Bears a little more seriously, not that it will make them play better, but it's nice for them to get a little recognition.
The spread isn't about respect, nor is it made by the media. Those creating it are not making a prediction about anything other than where people will lay their bets. All they care about is trying to get half the bets on each team so that they profit on the juice.
At least there are many reasons to be excited. Cutler looks more fit, and is showing much better mechanics and footwork. The o-line looks to be improving and I think Tice is really earning his paycheck. Merriweather could fill the free safety hole that's been left ever since Mike Brown's career was decimated by repetitive injuries. The d-line is looking better on the interior than it has in recent memory, and with Peppers has a chance to be a dominating pass rushing unit. Forte is being well utilized in the current offensive scheme. The receivers may not be world beaters, but have great overall speed and appear to be more comfortable with their roles in year two of the Martz offense. And Cutler is the best QB the Bears have rostered in my lifetime, certainly talented enough to take us to the promised land with a top defense/special teams backing him up.There are bound to be some ups and downs, but hopefully they can continue to improve and get better. If they can also avoid major injuries and keep Cutler on his feet for the duration, this has a chance to be a special season, shades of 2006 but without the good/bad Rex handicap. Not making my Super Bowl plans in September, but Indianapolis isn't very far from Chicago.
Fully agree there are reasons to be hopeful. But that doesn't mean we have to close our eyes and pretend there are not issues that need addressing. The worst OL of 2010 can only improve, so the fact they are improving isn't enough to cause me not to want more. There were some high level FAs out there when the market opened and we held pat. There were some good WRs available, and we held pat. JA is too arrogant to believe he could have been wrong and will keep insisting Devin Hester will be one of the league's best WRs eventually... So yea, I'll criticize the obvious mistakes, and cheer the victories as they come.
Read the post I made. Do you actually think that Lovie prepared this team well in week 2? I can agree with the fact the Bears needed to run more but after the Henderson TD the Bears were forced to try to throw the ball. Regardless of how you viewed the "Sproles TD", I never blamed the coach entirely for this lousy effort. That blame can be spread to a few areas but if I had to make a choice it would be the weak OL. However, if he threw the red flag the defense has a shot to hold them to a FG which keeps them in the game. Moot point as the Saints defense just crushed Cutler who was really put in a no win situation with that pathetic OL. Bottom line- a bad effort all around but a truly horrid performance by a bad OL.
I've been an Angelo apologist and willing to forgive much but I have to agree with this post, and sadly the bolded as well. We have the coaches to win but not the talent on the O line. Even with Roy Williams, if the O Line were there, I truly believe the offense would be fine. It's a shame with the defense this good that this team will not be able to be better. Cutler was mobbed today, and it's going to keep happening.
What you say goes in one ear and out the other.People need to chill out about this game.1) Starting RG Lance Louis was out2) Starting WR Roy Williams was out3) Earl Bennett was knocked out of the game in the 1st quarter4) Starting RT Gabe Carimi was knocked out of the game in the 2nd quarter5) The first sack wasn't until midway through the 3rd quarter when Kellen Davis was matched up with a DE, then Cutler fumbled the ball.6) The rest of the sacks happened in the 4th quarter when the Bears were down by 17. It's hard for ANY OL to block with 2 starters out and the defense knows you have to pass.Want another positive? Despite pressure for most of the game, Jay Cutler threw 0 INTs. Despite all the pressure last year, Cutler only threw 16. He's getting better.The Saints outplayed the Bears today, no doubting that. But the sacks mostly happened with the game in hand.
I appreciate your optimism. However here is the problems with your observations.1) Lance Louis can't play. So his absence is no great loss.2) Roy Williams is mediocre at best. His presence wouldn't have made much difference.3) Losing Bennett hurt4) Carimi has played fairly well this year so far. Omiyale is a big downgrade. 5) Although the first sack didn't come until the third quarter, Cutler was hit and knocked down consistently from the beginning of the game. It wasn't until the third quarter when they were getting to Cutler for the sacks.6) There is no excuse in the world for allowing your QB to get pummeled like that. They were missing two starters, but Louis is a questionable starter anyway. Not having Carimi hurt. But what it also demonstrated that there is virtually no depth. Omiyale came in and was completely ineffective. Which leads back to the mistaken idea that the linemen they have are adequate. The Bears have given up 10 sacks in just two weeks. At this rate the Bears QBs will be sacked 80 times this year. Can you imagine how many times the Lions are going to sack Cutler? Or the Packers next week?The Saints definitely outplayed the Bears. But it also gave a script to other teams to demonstrate how the Bears can be beat.'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
He doesn't get it, Twistd. He hasn't since the Benson years and never will.
What don't I get? That being a negative Nancy gets you nowhere in life or on a message board. Clearly from all the comments the week before nobody enjoys your posts. I bring factual things to the table, hope you feel better in your negative world.
O rly? Almost every post from you and Sweetness are responses to things I've said, Sweetness for the most part name calling. I'm a realist, Mr. Delusional, not someone with their head stuck in the sand. Never criticizing your teams doesn't make you a better fan. It means you are one of those delusional Bears fan who has no perception of what's really happening on the team. Go back and read something I've said this offseason that wasn't true. It's obvious to everyone in the NFL outside of you and a few delusional Bears fans that not addressing the weak points on this teams will burn us. Jay is even frustrated by it at this point. Regardless of how bad things go, there's always another excuse. "It was late in the game." "Lineman were hurt." "It's hard for ANY team to block...blah blah blah." Tell it to Jay. He didn't seem ok with it. The stuff about me saying Jay isn't playing much better this season, you're pulling that out of your ### and not looking back any of my posts. I've given nothing but praise to Jay since the beginning of camp. He's a different guy, footwork wise. Get your facts straight. Have you ever criticized the team for a bad move? I don't think you have one time in the years that you have been on here, NOT ONCE. And I've been here well before you arrived. Your usual argument is that I'm not an NFL GM, and I should shut it because they're smarter than me.
My eyes are wide freaking open. I see the strong points and the deficiencies of this team. Hell, anyone paying attention can see it. Why not you? Take off the homer glasses. If you do, it doesn't make you less of a fan.I'll give this to you, though. You try to make an argument, however delusional it is, unlike Sweetness who hurls insults and tells me what a tool I am all of the time. I respect that.
This was my exact point earlier. The Bears became "good" last year when Lovie got Martz to start handing the ball off a ton and the Bears ran more than anyone else in the league during the second half of last season.There was no reason to run the ball 12 times this game, until after the Saints scored the last touchdown. Jay was getting killed back there and Martz refused to run the ball. Being down 10 going into the 4th doesn't mean you forget about the run. For arguments sake, what about before they were down 10? Was there a reason for it? The Bears were averaging 5yds/rush for the game. Was that not enough? I thought one of the points was to keep the ball out of the hands of the Saints powerful offense. Doesn't that mean pounding the ball some of the time and making the defense play honest, so Jay doesn't just get killed behind our porous OL? It makes absolutely no sense. Someone justify this to team. I want you to.
No one will be able to justify this mess. The issue here is the same problems are killing this team. They never resolve the issues!There was no reason to run the ball 12 times this game, until after the Saints scored the last touchdown. Jay was getting killed back there and Martz refused to run the ball. Being down 10 going into the 4th doesn't mean you forget about the run. For arguments sake, what about before they were down 10? Was there a reason for it? The Bears were averaging 5yds/rush for the game. Was that not enough? I thought one of the points was to keep the ball out of the hands of the Saints powerful offense. Doesn't that mean pounding the ball some of the time and making the defense play honest, so Jay doesn't just get killed behind our porous OL? It makes absolutely no sense. Someone justify this to team. I want you to.
yet flap gets grief for pointing out those issues.No one will be able to justify this mess. The issue here is the same problems are killing this team. They never resolve the issues!There was no reason to run the ball 12 times this game, until after the Saints scored the last touchdown. Jay was getting killed back there and Martz refused to run the ball. Being down 10 going into the 4th doesn't mean you forget about the run. For arguments sake, what about before they were down 10? Was there a reason for it? The Bears were averaging 5yds/rush for the game. Was that not enough? I thought one of the points was to keep the ball out of the hands of the Saints powerful offense. Doesn't that mean pounding the ball some of the time and making the defense play honest, so Jay doesn't just get killed behind our porous OL? It makes absolutely no sense. Someone justify this to team. I want you to.
He gets grief because he's annoying and all he points out are negative things. It's like watching the News. He jumps to conclusions very fast too, almost as much as a teenage girl.yet flap gets grief for pointing out those issues.No one will be able to justify this mess. The issue here is the same problems are killing this team. They never resolve the issues!There was no reason to run the ball 12 times this game, until after the Saints scored the last touchdown. Jay was getting killed back there and Martz refused to run the ball. Being down 10 going into the 4th doesn't mean you forget about the run. For arguments sake, what about before they were down 10? Was there a reason for it? The Bears were averaging 5yds/rush for the game. Was that not enough? I thought one of the points was to keep the ball out of the hands of the Saints powerful offense. Doesn't that mean pounding the ball some of the time and making the defense play honest, so Jay doesn't just get killed behind our porous OL? It makes absolutely no sense. Someone justify this to team. I want you to.
Seems the negative things he is pointing out are spot on.And without getting into the pissing match here...I will leave the teenage girl stuff to you Bears fans.He gets grief because he's annoying and all he points out are negative things. It's like watching the News. He jumps to conclusions very fast too, almost as much as a teenage girl.yet flap gets grief for pointing out those issues.No one will be able to justify this mess. The issue here is the same problems are killing this team. They never resolve the issues!There was no reason to run the ball 12 times this game, until after the Saints scored the last touchdown. Jay was getting killed back there and Martz refused to run the ball. Being down 10 going into the 4th doesn't mean you forget about the run. For arguments sake, what about before they were down 10? Was there a reason for it? The Bears were averaging 5yds/rush for the game. Was that not enough? I thought one of the points was to keep the ball out of the hands of the Saints powerful offense. Doesn't that mean pounding the ball some of the time and making the defense play honest, so Jay doesn't just get killed behind our porous OL? It makes absolutely no sense. Someone justify this to team. I want you to.
The Bears couldn't get anything going in the running game either. Their backs ran for 48 yards on 11 carries, but 42 of those yards came on one Forte carry. Other than that play, they had 10 carries for 6 yards and 0 first downs. That left them in a lot of 2nd-and-longs (including the 2nd & 11 with the sack-fumble) and a lot of 3rd down passing situations.There was no reason to run the ball 12 times this game, until after the Saints scored the last touchdown. Jay was getting killed back there and Martz refused to run the ball. Being down 10 going into the 4th doesn't mean you forget about the run. For arguments sake, what about before they were down 10? Was there a reason for it? The Bears were averaging 5yds/rush for the game. Was that not enough? I thought one of the points was to keep the ball out of the hands of the Saints powerful offense. Doesn't that mean pounding the ball some of the time and making the defense play honest, so Jay doesn't just get killed behind our porous OL? It makes absolutely no sense. Someone justify this to team. I want you to.
I think you're missing the point. Whether or not you are actually succesful running the ball is only part of the reason you need to run the ball in the NFL. The other part is setting up play action. In the first quarter, the Bears TD was set up by the fact that the LB froze on the fake handoff - because there was at least the possibility the Bears were going to run the ball. ALso, if you run the ball at least occasionally (more than 25% of the time) - it slows down the pass rush, as the defense can't pin back their ears and fly downfield.'ZWK said:The Bears couldn't get anything going in the running game either. Their backs ran for 48 yards on 11 carries, but 42 of those yards came on one Forte carry. Other than that play, they had 10 carries for 6 yards and 0 first downs. That left them in a lot of 2nd-and-longs (including the 2nd & 11 with the sack-fumble) and a lot of 3rd down passing situations.There was no reason to run the ball 12 times this game, until after the Saints scored the last touchdown. Jay was getting killed back there and Martz refused to run the ball. Being down 10 going into the 4th doesn't mean you forget about the run. For arguments sake, what about before they were down 10? Was there a reason for it? The Bears were averaging 5yds/rush for the game. Was that not enough? I thought one of the points was to keep the ball out of the hands of the Saints powerful offense. Doesn't that mean pounding the ball some of the time and making the defense play honest, so Jay doesn't just get killed behind our porous OL? It makes absolutely no sense. Someone justify this to team. I want you to.
Because of the Bears history since Angelo has taken over, I disagree with the bolded. His very first season the Bears had a very good line. The coming offseason he let 2 or 3 of them walk as their contracts were up and he not only didn't even make an offer to them to stay but he didn't bring in replacements. He just let the team promote backups into starters. The line has been a disaster ever since, regardless of the line coach. So I interpret it all as Angelo dictating to Tice that the line is good enough and that its Tice's job to get them to perform. Angelo has never had a sense of the importance of a good line or what players will perform well there.On the WR end, I pretty much agree with all points. I think Knox as well as possibly Williams and Sazenbacher (too early to say) could develop into #2s for the team. But that depends on a real #1 on the team drawing coverage. Teams can blitz Cutler all day and make the line look worse because its fairly easy to play man against these guys.'twistd said:
That right there is an excellent point sir.The Bears lack of a true #1 WR creat several problems (possibly the biggest, is the one you just noted):
Yep, another 1st rounder bites the dust. Well, we have good backups, future Hall of Famer Edwin Williams. We'll be fine. :(
You may be right about the Angelo/Tice relationship. But you have to wonder, Tice is a former head coach. You would think that coaches have some say in personnel matters, and you would think with Tice's experience he would at least consult on the decisions they make as far as the offensive line is concerned. If he is ignored then he can't be blamed as much for the ineptitude of the line.I think in the Martz system he thinks he doesn't need a #1 receiver. I think he believes that as long as players run the system it can be successful. Knox and Hester actually do fit the mold of what Martz seems to want. But you do have a point, if teams can cover these guys man to man it really neuters the system.
I think you are right. The most successful offensive teams are very versatile. If you look at New England, they don't have elite WR talent, although Welker could be considered that. Instead they went out and drafted Gronk and Hernandez. Now they run lots of two TE sets that allow them to run with two TEs, and Woodhead in the backfield. They can split out both TEs and Woodhead to run empty backfield or leave the TEs on the line to have a power running formation. They can do all that while running hurry up. You look at New Orleans, they have lots of dynamic players with Sproles and Graham in addition to Colston, Lance Moore, Henderson, and Meacham. Indy has Wayne, Collie, and Garcon, in addition to Dallas Clark. As if Green Bay didn't have enough weapons with Jennings, Driver, Jordy Nelson, James Jones and Finley. Now they go get Randall Cobb. They all seem to believe that you can't have enough playmakers. The Bears, on the other hand, have Forte, and although both Knox and Hester could be called dynamic, they are also inconsistent. While most teams are looking for playmakers at TE, Gronk, Finley, Hernandez, Keller, Gates, Gresham, and all of these athletic TEs, the Bears are going after blockers. Olsen was dynamic, but they had no use for him. I think it is a passing league, and you have to have dynamic players to take advantage of that. The Bears need to catch up.
