Lovie Smith Double Talk (1 Viewer)

[DoubleG]

I don't have a link to the presser from yesterday, but at one point, Lovie Smith said something to the effect that "we were all in agreement with the game plan; Mike, me" yadda, yadda. Then later in the same press conference, when asked about the balance between pass and run and what it should ideally be in his opinion, his response, without hesitation was "50/50". The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times. That ratio, however is closer to 80/20.

IMHO, one of a few things is going on here:

1) Lovie is just saying "50/50" because he thinks that's what he should say (but in reality, doesn't give a flip about the ratio and feels they should pass 80% of the time).

2) Lovie beleives 50/50 - but cant get Martz to buy in.

3) The Seahawks were so effective against the Bears run, that the Bears intended 50/50, but scrapped it and went pass-heavy as an in-game adjustment.

Two questions - what do you think is happening here? What should the Bears do moving forward?

My thought is, if you start loosing more games, and it really is 1 or 2 - people are going to start loosing jobs. If it's 3, then people should start loosing jobs anyway, given the poor offensive line, the concussed QB, and a defense that is usually good enough to keep the game close if the offense does anything.

 

[Badnewz]

It is tough to hand off to a guy when he is busy running a wheel route whenever he is in the game.

 

[MG345]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

 

[whitem0nkey]

2 out of the 12 rushes were Cutler running for his life.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

Who has underrated Seattle's run D? I think the Bears can be a more effective offense with balance, but take away one long run from Taylor and Cutler's 2 runs....the Bears run game was ineffective.

 

[Clifford]

I don't have a link to the presser from yesterday, but at one point, Lovie Smith said something to the effect that "we were all in agreement with the game plan; Mike, me" yadda, yadda. Then later in the same press conference, when asked about the balance between pass and run and what it should ideally be in his opinion, his response, without hesitation was "50/50". The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times. That ratio, however is closer to 80/20.

IMHO, one of a few things is going on here:

1) Lovie is just saying "50/50" because he thinks that's what he should say (but in reality, doesn't give a flip about the ratio and feels they should pass 80% of the time).

2) Lovie beleives 50/50 - but cant get Martz to buy in.

3) The Seahawks were so effective against the Bears run, that the Bears intended 50/50, but scrapped it and went pass-heavy as an in-game adjustment.

Two questions - what do you think is happening here? What should the Bears do moving forward?

My thought is, if you start loosing more games, and it really is 1 or 2 - people are going to start loosing jobs. If it's 3, then people should start loosing jobs anyway, given the poor offensive line, the concussed QB, and a defense that is usually good enough to keep the game close if the offense does anything.

You do know that the correct word here is "losing" not "loosing" and that there is a difference, right?Here's the takeaway: Lovie isn't in charge of the ratio. Chicago brought Martz in to completely remake the Bears in the image of the 2000 Rams. Martz is in year one. Regardless of what Lovie thinks the ratio should be, it will be whatever Mike decides it is.

The thing is that you have a team that is a founding franchise of the league, and it has always been a run-heavy, strong defense, blue-collar team with blue-collar fans. Martz is at best an odd fit and could be at worst a complete disaster that sets this franchise back half a decade. But they sold the farm with Cutler and had to go all in with Martz.

 

[MG345]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

Who has underrated Seattle's run D? I think the Bears can be a more effective offense with balance, but take away one long run from Taylor and Cutler's 2 runs....the Bears run game was ineffective.

Lots of people under rate Seattle's run D, not so much on this board though. What I am saying is, how can you expect to have a 50/50 balance, when Seattle is shutting people down left and right. Their pass defense is pretty bad, but part of that is teams literally have no choice but to pass. So, it isn't a matter of what they wanted to do, or what Lovie thought he should say...at a certain point if something isn't working, you have to go away from it. And when Seattle showed signs of life on offense (hence why I said CHI held the lead for less than 3 minutes), Chicago had no choice but to throw it.

 

[mbuehner]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

Who has underrated Seattle's run D? I think the Bears can be a more effective offense with balance, but take away one long run from Taylor and Cutler's 2 runs....the Bears run game was ineffective.

Did Martz intuit the strength of the Seattle run defense before or after the Bears marched down and punched in a Forte rushing touchdown on the first drive?Btw- we all know you can't play the 'take away this carry' game. We'd also do well to keep in mind the only Bears offensive touchdown was a 6 yard run by Forte.Just as criminal was Martz not targetting his RBs enough in the passing game. Given not converting a single third down in the entire game, targeting your RBs only once out of 12 attempts is pathetic. You've got two above average pass catching backs and you can't get them the ball in space... particularly when everybody on the planet knows your o-line can't protect your QB on 5 and 7 drop plays Martz just has to run. Swing and screen passes are easily the best plays the Bears have run this season offensively. I understand you don't want to beat them into the ground, but for gods sake your QB is getting his brains beat in, you have the worst 3rd down conversion rate in recent NFL memory... get the ball out quick to your best playmakers and MAKE Seattle stop them. Martz thinks he's so damned smart but all he's doing is outwitting himself, everybody knows what he is going to do before he does it. Instead of stretching the field to open up the running backs, shorten the field with whats working so your receivers have a chance of getting behind the Defense. Did it ever look like Seattle was biting short? Every bomb I saw was double and triple covered down the field, and those WRs are not nearly good enough to go up and get those. All you got to do to beat the Bears is play off the WRs and let your front 4 rack up the sacks and watch any passes that get out hit the turf between 2 dbs and the WR.

 

[MDSkinner]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

Who has underrated Seattle's run D? I think the Bears can be a more effective offense with balance, but take away one long run from Taylor and Cutler's 2 runs....the Bears run game was ineffective.

Lots of people under rate Seattle's run D, not so much on this board though. What I am saying is, how can you expect to have a 50/50 balance, when Seattle is shutting people down left and right. Their pass defense is pretty bad, but part of that is teams literally have no choice but to pass. So, it isn't a matter of what they wanted to do, or what Lovie thought he should say...at a certain point if something isn't working, you have to go away from it. And when Seattle showed signs of life on offense (hence why I said CHI held the lead for less than 3 minutes), Chicago had no choice but to throw it.

I completely disagree with the idea that Chicago had no choice but to throw it. The Seattle run D was great and clearly Chicago was going to have to throw MORE but that does not mean 80/20 more. 80/20 means pin your ears back and you mention earlier how SEA did this without their best defensive lineman and I say that is because they knew it was going to be a pass on virtually every play. It is a lot easier to get pressure on the QB when you know for a fact he is going to throw it. No need to worry about those running lanes, just go get'em.So I think in reality Chicago needed to run the ball more and even take a few of those 2 yard gains just so they could keep the defense at least somewhat honest. JMO.

 

[MG345]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

Who has underrated Seattle's run D? I think the Bears can be a more effective offense with balance, but take away one long run from Taylor and Cutler's 2 runs....the Bears run game was ineffective.

Did Martz intuit the strength of the Seattle run defense before or after the Bears marched down and punched in a Forte rushing touchdown on the first drive?

I wouldn't exactly call a 58 yard PI call on the second play of the game "marching down the field". Granted, I believe the call was the right call, it wasn't like Chicago was blowing Seattle off the line or anything crazy like that. For what it is worth, Forte's two longest runs came on that drive, a run of 3 yards, and run of 6 yards for the TD. But from that point on there was little traction in the run game, and Chicago wound up trailing most of the game, so they pretty much had to air it out. There was nothing that happened during that game that lead me to believe the Bears would have had a better run game if they ran it 20+ times.

 

[MG345]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

Who has underrated Seattle's run D? I think the Bears can be a more effective offense with balance, but take away one long run from Taylor and Cutler's 2 runs....the Bears run game was ineffective.

Lots of people under rate Seattle's run D, not so much on this board though. What I am saying is, how can you expect to have a 50/50 balance, when Seattle is shutting people down left and right. Their pass defense is pretty bad, but part of that is teams literally have no choice but to pass. So, it isn't a matter of what they wanted to do, or what Lovie thought he should say...at a certain point if something isn't working, you have to go away from it. And when Seattle showed signs of life on offense (hence why I said CHI held the lead for less than 3 minutes), Chicago had no choice but to throw it.

I completely disagree with the idea that Chicago had no choice but to throw it. The Seattle run D was great and clearly Chicago was going to have to throw MORE but that does not mean 80/20 more. 80/20 means pin your ears back and you mention earlier how SEA did this without their best defensive lineman and I say that is because they knew it was going to be a pass on virtually every play. It is a lot easier to get pressure on the QB when you know for a fact he is going to throw it. No need to worry about those running lanes, just go get'em.So I think in reality Chicago needed to run the ball more and even take a few of those 2 yard gains just so they could keep the defense at least somewhat honest. JMO.

You realize that Seattle was stuffing the run even when using 7 DBs, 1 LB, and 3 DL? How much more ineffective can you be, when you can't run against a formation like that? Maybe they could have been a little more balanced, it definitely would have kept Cutler from getting pounded -- it would have just meant that Forte was getting pounded. Chicago's o-line wasn't doing any favors for the offense, that is really where the blame should lie. Give Cutler a little time, and Forte some room to run, this might have been a different game.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

Who has underrated Seattle's run D? I think the Bears can be a more effective offense with balance, but take away one long run from Taylor and Cutler's 2 runs....the Bears run game was ineffective.

Lots of people under rate Seattle's run D, not so much on this board though. What I am saying is, how can you expect to have a 50/50 balance, when Seattle is shutting people down left and right. Their pass defense is pretty bad, but part of that is teams literally have no choice but to pass. So, it isn't a matter of what they wanted to do, or what Lovie thought he should say...at a certain point if something isn't working, you have to go away from it. And when Seattle showed signs of life on offense (hence why I said CHI held the lead for less than 3 minutes), Chicago had no choice but to throw it.

I completely disagree with the idea that Chicago had no choice but to throw it. The Seattle run D was great and clearly Chicago was going to have to throw MORE but that does not mean 80/20 more. 80/20 means pin your ears back and you mention earlier how SEA did this without their best defensive lineman and I say that is because they knew it was going to be a pass on virtually every play. It is a lot easier to get pressure on the QB when you know for a fact he is going to throw it. No need to worry about those running lanes, just go get'em.So I think in reality Chicago needed to run the ball more and even take a few of those 2 yard gains just so they could keep the defense at least somewhat honest. JMO.

You realize that Seattle was stuffing the run even when using 7 DBs, 1 LB, and 3 DL? How much more ineffective can you be, when you can't run against a formation like that? Maybe they could have been a little more balanced, it definitely would have kept Cutler from getting pounded -- it would have just meant that Forte was getting pounded. Chicago's o-line wasn't doing any favors for the offense, that is really where the blame should lie. Give Cutler a little time, and Forte some room to run, this might have been a different game.

The sample size is sooo small (10 carries). The Bears run D is pretty good as well....but they can't hold up forever and the more you run the more effective teams become. The D's wearing down later in games. Also with the youth on the Bears OL, it is easier to run block.

 

[MG345]

The sample size is sooo small (10 carries). The Bears run D is pretty good as well....but they can't hold up forever and the more you run the more effective teams become. The D's wearing down later in games. Also with the youth on the Bears OL, it is easier to run block.

In terms of sample size, what would be enough? Granted at any point Forte could have taken one to the house, but the same could be said of Knox, Hester, etc (which Knox almost did, and Hester gave me a heart attack). I am not disagreeing that Chicago probably SHOULD have run more, but it is completely understandable that they didn't. As for the Bears having an easier time run blocking, not so sure about that. They looked pretty inept at both run blocking and pass blocking; and I would know I have seen enough bad o-lines in Seattle. All I am saying is that a more balanced attack against a team who has great run defense, and poor passing defense, is going against the grain. The problem lied not in the game plan, but in the execution, because if you knew anything about Seattle's defense, you would see that it is the best way to attack them. It just so happens that Chicago couldn't block anyone on Sunday.

 

[mbuehner]

The sample size is sooo small (10 carries). The Bears run D is pretty good as well....but they can't hold up forever and the more you run the more effective teams become. The D's wearing down later in games. Also with the youth on the Bears OL, it is easier to run block.

That's what i was gonna say. PI penalty on the first drive aside- that red zone series looked as good as it gets, and that hasn't been a Bears strength by any means. Forte had 4 touches on that drive. Then Forte had 3 more carries and 3 targets the rest of the half including a fade route down the sideline where he was just about tripping over a WR running the same pattern- which brings up another point, there were Bears receivers running the same route on top of each other at least 3 times I personally saw in the game. That couldn't have helped.Forte got 5 more looks or carries the rest of the game. He's easily the most dynamic player on that offense (and I was a doubter... but then again his competition is not stiff). Taylor is a nice player but they basically have the same skill set, if you're only gonna run the ball 12 times do you really need to split series? If Forte breaks through the hole Taylor did on his long run its very likely a touchdown.

 

[mbuehner]

The sample size is sooo small (10 carries). The Bears run D is pretty good as well....but they can't hold up forever and the more you run the more effective teams become. The D's wearing down later in games. Also with the youth on the Bears OL, it is easier to run block.

In terms of sample size, what would be enough? Granted at any point Forte could have taken one to the house, but the same could be said of Knox, Hester, etc (which Knox almost did, and Hester gave me a heart attack). I am not disagreeing that Chicago probably SHOULD have run more, but it is completely understandable that they didn't. As for the Bears having an easier time run blocking, not so sure about that. They looked pretty inept at both run blocking and pass blocking; and I would know I have seen enough bad o-lines in Seattle. All I am saying is that a more balanced attack against a team who has great run defense, and poor passing defense, is going against the grain. The problem lied not in the game plan, but in the execution, because if you knew anything about Seattle's defense, you would see that it is the best way to attack them. It just so happens that Chicago couldn't block anyone on Sunday.

But they didn't reliably get the ball into Knox or Hester's hands enough. Too many times the QB was on his back or the ball hit the ground. Thats the problem. This isn't a question of whether they should throw well or run badly- they can't seem to do either. But at least running or getting the ball out quickly (about equivalent to a run) you are sure the playmakers have a chance to make a play and force the defense to make a play to stop them. No question the o-line was terrible. But that's a given. Why do you keep running plays that maximize their terribleness?

 

[MG345]

The sample size is sooo small (10 carries). The Bears run D is pretty good as well....but they can't hold up forever and the more you run the more effective teams become. The D's wearing down later in games. Also with the youth on the Bears OL, it is easier to run block.

In terms of sample size, what would be enough? Granted at any point Forte could have taken one to the house, but the same could be said of Knox, Hester, etc (which Knox almost did, and Hester gave me a heart attack). I am not disagreeing that Chicago probably SHOULD have run more, but it is completely understandable that they didn't. As for the Bears having an easier time run blocking, not so sure about that. They looked pretty inept at both run blocking and pass blocking; and I would know I have seen enough bad o-lines in Seattle. All I am saying is that a more balanced attack against a team who has great run defense, and poor passing defense, is going against the grain. The problem lied not in the game plan, but in the execution, because if you knew anything about Seattle's defense, you would see that it is the best way to attack them. It just so happens that Chicago couldn't block anyone on Sunday.

But they didn't reliably get the ball into Knox or Hester's hands enough. Too many times the QB was on his back or the ball hit the ground. Thats the problem. This isn't a question of whether they should throw well or run badly- they can't seem to do either. But at least running or getting the ball out quickly (about equivalent to a run) you are sure the playmakers have a chance to make a play and force the defense to make a play to stop them. No question the o-line was terrible. But that's a given. Why do you keep running plays that maximize their terribleness?

The passing plays were more affective than the running plays by far, so your point can be redirected back at your assertion of wanting to run more. You stated above that they got away from running after looking good in the red zone (which they did), but what you fail to mention is WHY they got away from it. Seattle shut down Chicago's running game for the next couple of possessions, and then shortly after scored a second TD. Chicago had not moved the ball at all on the ground, even on that first possession they only picked up 9 yards. At that point they realized that unless they started forcing the issue, Seattle was in position to put the game away. The ONLY thing that kept Chicago in the game was the long pass. I do agree with you on one point though, Cutler held on to the ball way too long, and could have at least taken less hits getting the ball out of his hands quicker. Seattle's defense was really shadowing those underneath routes all game long, which is part of the reason the RBs didn't play a bigger role in the passing game (screens have killed Seattle's D).Regardless, Seattle has been beaten by the pass all year long, it is completely understandable that Martz wanted to take advantage of that. It just happened to coincide with Seattle's pass rush showing up on the road.

 

[CaptainHook]

saying you think a 50/50 ratio is ideal isnt even close to saying you should have a 50/50 ratio every game.

 

[RudeDog]

Don't know what the big surprise here is. We all new coming in that Martz + a weak offense line meant trouble for Cutler and an irrational imbalance of run/pass by Martz. This has been his MO everywhere and its not going to change now. He is too stubborn to change and the O-line is too bad to make a difference. Cutler will get sacked and Forte will generally score on big plays only. The Bears will make the playoffs on shear mediocrity of the conference and will make a quick exit.

They will then proceed to ignore both their offensive line and safety needs in the draft next year.

 

[Clifford]

We've drafted a safety in every draft for like the past ten years. We just can't draft ones that can play (Manning, Steltz, Major Wright).

 

[the rover]

Hi. Anyone ever watch the 2001 Super Bowl?

I feel bad for Cutler, and I don't even like the guy. Martz is going to get him killed.

 

[ppierce]

Martz is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. They don't have the recievers, line or probably even qb to do what he likes to do. Its a trainwreck.

Funny thing is, for the past 10 years Bear fans have been calmoring for them to pass more and stop being conservative. Now all the talk radio shows are talking about is how they need to run more and not pass.

 

[MG345]

Martz is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. They don't have the recievers, line or probably even qb to do what he likes to do. Its a trainwreck.

Honestly, I think if they solidify the line, they would be fine. The WRs aren't Holt/Bruce, but who is? Cutler has all the physical tools, but makes bad decisions under pressure...give him some time and he will pick you apart. Plus the defense is still really good, which should give the Bears shorter fields to work with.

 

[Clifford]

All this team needs is a decent line and someone to step up in our secondary. Get those two things and this is a real contender.

 

[reprisal]

Im much more concerned about the Bears lack of ability to call pass plays with routes intended to go for under 25 yards then the lack of running plays. Running the ball isnt necessarily a strength of this team and seattles run defense has been much better than their pass defense. Theyve run well vs carolina when the defense was clearly licking their chops and gunning to kill Cutler early in the game...thats it. They need to pass well to run well. However, the Bears dont manage down and distance at all. They play directly into their weaknesses. If you let the opposing DC pick the plays theyd prefer the bears run, I doubt they change much.

 

[mbuehner]

saying you think a 50/50 ratio is ideal isnt even close to saying you should have a 50/50 ratio every game.

If you toss out the 42 rushes the Bears had when Cutler was hurt against Carolina, this offense has had 175 pass attempts (tack on the 20 or so sacks they've absorbed and the 16 times Cutler has had to scramble) and run 99 times, which means this team runs the ball about 32% of the time with Cutler at the helm. That is the offense, thats how its designed. To pretend the Bears intend to run 50/50 or anything like it is beneath Lovie and makes us look like chumps for listening to it.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Lovie Smith doesn't care what he says to the press. He is above them and his interaction with them is nothing more than a downside to an otherwise great occupation.

 

[CaptainHook]

im just saying usage of the word ideally there changes things significantly. ideally you are blowing out the opponent. ideally you have a great running back. ideally your offensive line can block. just because ideally he would run a 50/50 definitely doesnt mean he wants this current team doing it.

 

[Football Jones]

You would be surprised what a good OL would do for that offense. Knox is a budding superstar, but they rarely have time to throw.

If they're smart, they won't do anything but improve the OL & add another outside WR (move Hester to the slot).

 

[CutlerToCutler]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

This thread has nothing to do with Seattle's run defense. Get the #### out of here.

 

[duaneok66]

Martz is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. They don't have the recievers, line or probably even qb to do what he likes to do. Its a trainwreck.Funny thing is, for the past 10 years Bear fans have been calmoring for them to pass more and stop being conservative. Now all the talk radio shows are talking about is how they need to run more and not pass.

agreed - however, we knew that going in. When Martz was hired, I was like "just what are the receivers going to do??" The 1999 rams had Bruce (All Pro WR) and Holt (future all star) + Proehl and Hakim - some guy named Faulk wasnt bad either - they also had a great LT - this team has (basically) none of that . . . just like any other coach, he needs 2-3 years to get players for his system . . . should he (until then) chuck his system and go more conservative??

 

[destro]

Martz is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. They don't have the recievers, line or probably even qb to do what he likes to do. Its a trainwreck.Funny thing is, for the past 10 years Bear fans have been calmoring for them to pass more and stop being conservative. Now all the talk radio shows are talking about is how they need to run more and not pass.

agreed - however, we knew that going in. When Martz was hired, I was like "just what are the receivers going to do??" The 1999 rams had Bruce (All Pro WR) and Holt (future all star) + Proehl and Hakim - some guy named Faulk wasnt bad either - they also had a great LT - this team has (basically) none of that . . . just like any other coach, he needs 2-3 years to get players for his system . . . should he (until then) chuck his system and go more conservative??

The wide receivers are fine. You don't need HoF receivers to run this system, but you probably need an NFL quality OL and having a playcaller that isn't insane helps. Running the ball more would help to an extent, but it probably wasn't going to help much versus the Seahawks. They just need to not try to play directly at their own weakness - i.e. run more plays focusing on short to intermediate passing routes, and occasionally sprinkle in the bombs to Knox/Hester. Maybe they could even consider rolling Cutler out of the pocket intentionally, where he has had great success in the past. Cutler was doing 14-step drops the whole game when the entire world knows the OL can't block for more than 2.5 seconds. Why would you do that? It's baffling.

 

[duaneok66]

Martz is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. They don't have the recievers, line or probably even qb to do what he likes to do. Its a trainwreck.Funny thing is, for the past 10 years Bear fans have been calmoring for them to pass more and stop being conservative. Now all the talk radio shows are talking about is how they need to run more and not pass.

agreed - however, we knew that going in. When Martz was hired, I was like "just what are the receivers going to do??" The 1999 rams had Bruce (All Pro WR) and Holt (future all star) + Proehl and Hakim - some guy named Faulk wasnt bad either - they also had a great LT - this team has (basically) none of that . . . just like any other coach, he needs 2-3 years to get players for his system . . . should he (until then) chuck his system and go more conservative??

The wide receivers are fine. You don't need HoF receivers to run this system, but you probably need an NFL quality OL and having a playcaller that isn't insane helps. Running the ball more would help to an extent, but it probably wasn't going to help much versus the Seahawks. They just need to not try to play directly at their own weakness - i.e. run more plays focusing on short to intermediate passing routes, and occasionally sprinkle in the bombs to Knox/Hester. Maybe they could even consider rolling Cutler out of the pocket intentionally, where he has had great success in the past. Cutler was doing 14-step drops the whole game when the entire world knows the OL can't block for more than 2.5 seconds. Why would you do that? It's baffling.

Martz is stubborn - he wants to run his system - problem is that he doesnt have the "parts' to run it . . .

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

bears get off the bus running.

at least their qb does.

 

[duaneok66]

bears get off the bus running.at least their qb does.

classic . . .

 

[MG345]

The Bears threw 47 passes and 12 rushes this past Sunday in a game they rarely trailed by more then 3 and one in which they were ahead at times.

Let's be clear here: Chicago held the lead for exactly 2 minutes and 39 seconds. People really under rate Seattle's run defense, so it is no big surprise that Chicago felt the need to attack Seattle's weaker pass defense. The problem is, Chicago really didn't stand a chance with how much pressure they put on Cutler. The crazy thing is Seattle did this without their best defensive lineman.

This thread has nothing to do with Seattle's run defense. Get the #### out of here.

Are you really this dense? Of course it has to do with Seattle's run defense, and it also has to do with Seattle's pass defense. The OP was talking specifically about the Seattle game, and why Chicago didn't try to run it more. I am sorry if that is hard for you to handle, but everything I said is very relevant to the discussion.

 

[mbuehner]

Martz is trying to stick a square peg into a round hole. They don't have the recievers, line or probably even qb to do what he likes to do. Its a trainwreck.

Funny thing is, for the past 10 years Bear fans have been calmoring for them to pass more and stop being conservative. Now all the talk radio shows are talking about is how they need to run more and not pass.

agreed - however, we knew that going in. When Martz was hired, I was like "just what are the receivers going to do??" The 1999 rams had Bruce (All Pro WR) and Holt (future all star) + Proehl and Hakim - some guy named Faulk wasnt bad either - they also had a great LT - this team has (basically) none of that . . .

just like any other coach, he needs 2-3 years to get players for his system . . . should he (until then) chuck his system and go more conservative??

Should he keep calling plays that are getting his quarterback's head beat in? What happens if (and when) Cutler gets another concussion? His career could quite literally be on the line. Where are we going this year that its worth risking... hell sacrificing the franchise QB you just sold out your teams future for? If they keep playing like this Cutler WILL get hurt again, maybe badly, maybe permanently. Its not like we're just a couple ticks of the ratchet from fixing this offense. What's the point? I do not understand risking Jay Cutler's career when it is demonstrably obvious that continuing as we are is just going to see more of the same. Hopefully Caleb Hainey will look good with whatever revamped O-line they bring in next year.

 

[mbuehner]

Btw- Bears have already given up 27 sacks (most in the league last year was 51), and 45 QB hits. So at this rate, Cutler can expect to be hit 75 more times and sacked 45 more times. And its worse than that considering Cutler missed a game and a half and the Bears went into turtle mode, so Cutler is getting hit even more than that.

 

[steelwind]

They need to run the ball more. Use Chester Taylor for in between tackles and Forte on passing downs. Due to their oline issues, Cutler will not last this year and Martz will kill Chicago's franchise QB. Things could be different if the oline is superb. But it's not. Much like the Greenbay Packers and their oline issues, the Bears need to have a balanced attack.