Studs n duds Bear meat

[rmontro]

Soldier field was LOUD. After every play there was a roar from the crowd like something big just happened! A late flag? Late hit? There a fight or something??? NOPE, just Bears fans filling the night sky with thunderous chest rattling roars, for no apparent reason. Lmao.

You're right, Soldier Field was really loud. The Bears fans showed up in force at the Green Bay game too (I was there for that one - the place erupted with that final INT). I can't blame Bears fans for being enthusiastic, this looks like the best team they've fielded in a long time, and IMO they haven't reached their ceiling yet.

 

[gopkrs]

You can full stop after the period all you want, it doesn’t make the statement true. The Bears started from their own 8 yard line after the missed 4th down, and they probably start from their own 35 if we take the 3.

They drive 80 yards on the next drive. You can just as easily assume that those 80 yards would have subsequently resulted in 7 points for Chicago instead of the 0 that they ended up with after failing their own 4th down.

Anyone thinking every time we fail a 4th down in FG range and bypass the FG that we could have simply added “3” to our final score and everything else would have remained the same is making false equivalencies.

Maybe not, but after the entire quarter or half and you look at the scoreboard, and there are 3 fewer points, it makes a difference. Especially in tight games. Yes, you have a decision to make and it might be different depending on conditions and opponent. But it's never wrong imho to get the first score

 

[Poppa San]

The play was over and Martin did a body slam on McMahon, if someone approved it they made it pretty obvious message to be sent, and so went his career with it

Revisionist history. Jimmy Mac had thrown an interception on the play and the body slam was Martin "blocking" during the return. Just that the returner was nowhere near the QB and he really wasn't part of the play anymore. IIRC the Packers went three & out with negative yardage on all three plays in the ensuing possession.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You can full stop after the period all you want, it doesn’t make the statement true. The Bears started from their own 8 yard line after the missed 4th down, and they probably start from their own 35 if we take the 3.

They drive 80 yards on the next drive. You can just as easily assume that those 80 yards would have subsequently resulted in 7 points for Chicago instead of the 0 that they ended up with after failing their own 4th down.

Anyone thinking every time we fail a 4th down in FG range and bypass the FG that we could have simply added “3” to our final score and everything else would have remained the same is making false equivalencies.

I caught that too during the game.

But I do agree that we should start taking the points, like the old school....

Doing the math... You add that 4th down every time, that's 25% more offense to get the first down. That alone massively raises the probability of the drive ending in a TD, by, I would guess, a similar +25%.
With the new kickoff rules, shortening the field. That helps the "go for it on 4th down" folks more...

The draw back being, you lose punt yards/field position, and FG attempts... Points...


With the elite kickers being able to kick it upper 50s, even 60+ yds now days. That helps the "4th down send out FG team" group... Starting at the 35, Kicking a 59 yarder. The offense only has to go 23 yards before they're in FG position for that 59 yarder.... A equally huge advantage, in my opinion.

So what's the right answer?

I believe it depends on the team you field. Their strengths and weaknesses... Do you have that elite kicker?(Do we?)
Is your offense capable of getting the job done consistently on 3rd and 4th downs?(We do)
Can our defense cover for the offense if they try and fail? (I think they have been)

Maybe the math behind the field position factors in as well. You hit that 40 yd line, and stall on 3rd and short. That should be FG time. Take the points, because you are only 25 yds into a 65 yd TD drive. There's no guarantees you make it the next 40 yards to justify the risk of going for it on 4th down... But say you get into the red zone and stall in a 3rd and short. The fact is, that short yardage play can net 4-5 points. And the chances of getting those points if converted, is higher probability. That might be the time to go for it. Takes the pressure off the defense of the 4th down attempt fails too....

The lions went for it every time because they were kicking *** on offense and defense. The numbers ended up working in their favor that year, and they had defenses struggling. But since then, other teams have tried to mimic, with less than great results. Not just GB

 

[gopkrs]

Revisionist history. Jimmy Mac had thrown an interception on the play and the body slam was Martin "blocking" during the return. Just that the returner was nowhere near the QB and he really wasn't part of the play anymore. IIRC the Packers went three & out with negative yardage on all three plays in the ensuing possession.

It was the way he threw him down that was so bad.

 

[milani]

Things like that can go either way so I dont think its as black and white as that.
In the 2nd lions game if we didnt go for those TDs on 4th down and instead settled for FGs we lose.

It is a % assessment. I thought MLF should have gone for a FG in the Lions game as well. He proved me wrong. I still would say take the points unless he saw something in the Lions defense that said they were vulnerable.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You're right, Soldier Field was really loud. The Bears fans showed up in force at the Green Bay game too (I was there for that one - the place erupted with that final INT). I can't blame Bears fans for being enthusiastic, this looks like the best team they've fielded in a long time, and IMO they haven't reached their ceiling yet.

Just like the lions fans were last year. Lol insufferable.

 

[milani]

Good point, of course it helps if you can turn those drives into touchdowns. Unfortunately, our red zone offense has become stagnant at times. That's one difference I see between Love and Rodgers. With Rodgers, I usually felt confident that he was going to convert those opportunities into touchdowns (unless we were playing SF or a very solid D). With Love I'm not so sure (of course that could be MLF's play calling too).

Inside the 10 yard line has a lot to do with your O line and run blocking. If you get a team to sell out you then can usually get a throw in the flat. Lot of optional plays but it starts with that line.

 

[milani]

You're right, Soldier Field was really loud. The Bears fans showed up in force at the Green Bay game too (I was there for that one - the place erupted with that final INT). I can't blame Bears fans for being enthusiastic, this looks like the best team they've fielded in a long time, and IMO they haven't reached their ceiling yet.

When wins go far and few between for years this naturally happens. And to believe they have a bona-fide QB is even more of a plus. How do you think Lions fans felt all those years? And to have that bubble burst in 2024 at home had to hurt.

 

[rmontro]

Revisionist history. Jimmy Mac had thrown an interception on the play and the body slam was Martin "blocking" during the return. Just that the returner was nowhere near the QB and he really wasn't part of the play anymore. IIRC the Packers went three & out with negative yardage on all three plays in the ensuing possession.

The Packers weren't very good in those days, as I'm sure you know.

 

[adambr2]

I caught that too during the game.

But I do agree that we should start taking the points, like the old school....

Doing the math... You add that 4th down every time, that's 25% more offense to get the first down. That alone massively raises the probability of the drive ending in a TD, by, I would guess, a similar +25%.
With the new kickoff rules, shortening the field. That helps the "go for it on 4th down" folks more...

The draw back being, you lose punt yards/field position, and FG attempts... Points...


With the elite kickers being able to kick it upper 50s, even 60+ yds now days. That helps the "4th down send out FG team" group... Starting at the 35, Kicking a 59 yarder. The offense only has to go 23 yards before they're in FG position for that 59 yarder.... A equally huge advantage, in my opinion.

So what's the right answer?

I believe it depends on the team you field. Their strengths and weaknesses... Do you have that elite kicker?(Do we?)
Is your offense capable of getting the job done consistently on 3rd and 4th downs?(We do)
Can our defense cover for the offense if they try and fail? (I think they have been)

Maybe the math behind the field position factors in as well. You hit that 40 yd line, and stall on 3rd and short. That should be FG time. Take the points, because you are only 25 yds into a 65 yd TD drive. There's no guarantees you make it the next 40 yards to justify the risk of going for it on 4th down... But say you get into the red zone and stall in a 3rd and short. The fact is, that short yardage play can net 4-5 points. And the chances of getting those points if converted, is higher probability. That might be the time to go for it. Takes the pressure off the defense of the 4th down attempt fails too....

The lions went for it every time because they were kicking *** on offense and defense. The numbers ended up working in their favor that year, and they had defenses struggling. But since then, other teams have tried to mimic, with less than great results. Not just GB

Really good points and assessments here.

My point certainly isn’t to say you should never “take the points”.

My point is simply that there are way too many variables and factors to reduce it to a “should always kick” or “should always go for it.” And you certainly can’t just assume that failing a 4th down in FG range means you have a net -3 points for the rest of the game. Again, way too many variables.

Smart coaches are using all of those variables to help them decide on a case by case basis. Some may lean aggressive or lean conservative, but every individual scenario should still stand alone based on the game situation.

I know we may not agree with everything our head coaches do, but I think we can all agree that they did not get to where they are by being a moron about football. If the best decision was truly to take the 3 points, every time, they’d all be doing it, every time, especially in this analytical age.

 

[Magooch]

I am generally of the mind that when you choose to be aggressive like that early you also have considerably more time to “make up for it” throughout the game if you fail to score/convert there. I didn’t love the read from Love tbh but didn’t mind the call to go for it. Just as easily as someone says “if we took the three points there it would be a different outcome” I can say “and if we’d scored the TD it would’ve been a different outcome too”

 

[milani]

I am generally of the mind that when you choose to be aggressive like that early you also have considerably more time to “make up for it” throughout the game if you fail to score/convert there. I didn’t love the read from Love tbh but didn’t mind the call to go for it. Just as easily as someone says “if we took the three points there it would be a different outcome” I can say “and if we’d scored the TD it would’ve been a different outcome too”

If this were the Bears of 3 or 4 years ago then you go because you know you can eventually run them out of the building.

 

[rmontro]

Just as easily as someone says “if we took the three points there it would be a different outcome” I can say “and if we’d scored the TD it would’ve been a different outcome too”

Also, when you change a score or a play like that, it's kind of like the Butterfly Effect. Different score, different game situations, the game gets called differently, it's not like everything else remain equal.

 

[Heyjoe4]

We win, we are in... we win two, and the Bears lose both of their last 2 games, we win the division... you never know.

Hell ya! The Niners have plenty of motivation to beat Chicago. As for the Bears/Lions game, I don’t see Campbell’s guys giving up. They may not play a lot of starters, but they’d love to spoil the party for the Bears.

Everything is on the table. All of these teams have a lot of pride.

Let’s check back in two weeks!

 

[Half Empty]

Time for us to can the debacle talk, put our big boy pants on, give this team the support they deserve and accept whatever happens.

All except the bold seems to say that we need to accept poor performances. The bolded part suggests that what we feel or say about the team has some impact on their psyche. I don't agree with either.

 

[gopkrs]

GoPackGo!

 

[chemist]

9

All except the bold seems to say that we need to accept poor performances. The bolded part suggests that what we feel or say about the team has some impact on their psyche. I don't agree with either.

And I dont agree with you.

 

[milani]

Also, when you change a score or a play like that, it's kind of like the Butterfly Effect. Different score, different game situations, the game gets called differently, it's not like everything else remain equal.

I like butterflies.

 

[rmontro]

I like butterflies.

Las mariposas.

 

[Heyjoe4]

You can full stop after the period all you want, it doesn’t make the statement true. The Bears started from their own 8 yard line after the missed 4th down, and they probably start from their own 35 if we take the 3.

They drive 80 yards on the next drive. You can just as easily assume that those 80 yards would have subsequently resulted in 7 points for Chicago instead of the 0 that they ended up with after failing their own 4th down.

Anyone thinking every time we fail a 4th down in FG range and bypass the FG that we could have simply added “3” to our final score and everything else would have remained the same is making false equivalencies.

Yeah Adam I have no way of knowing how the Chicago game (or any game) would have ended differently if a FG is made on the opening drive versus a failed 4th down conversion.

One game where going for it on 4th down (rather than a FG) was the wrong decision was against Carolina. And it was 4th and 8, I think after an off sides penalty, not sure. I don't mind 4th down attempts where 1) the yardage is 3 yards or less and 2) a FG is almost a sure thing.

Even if the FG had been taken against Carolina, the Packers would have still been down by 4. Hindsight is always 20/20. But I really didn't like that call by MLF.

 

[chemist]

Yeah Adam I have no way of knowing how the Chicago game (or any game) would have ended differently if a FG is made on the opening drive versus a failed 4th down conversion.

One game where going for it on 4th down (rather than a FG) was the wrong decision was against Carolina. And it was 4th and 8, I think after an off sides penalty, not sure. I don't mind 4th down attempts where 1) the yardage is 3 yards or less and 2) a FG is almost a sure thing.

Even if the FG had been taken against Carolina, the Packers would have still been down by 4. Hindsight is always 20/20. But I really didn't like that call by MLF.

I dont mind FGs when you are 30,40, yds out and you have 4th and something not easily achievable and you dont feel you have high confidence in any play in your play chart that will get you the necessary first down yardage but when you are in the red zone I am all for going for the TDs. It can be risky at times but so is trying to live on a steady diet of FGs . I feel you will lose more than you win on that diet. FGs may keep you in the game but its TDs that will win the game for you. Thats how the NFL appears to be operating these days, high risk, high reward.

 

[scooter_1954]

You can full stop after the period all you want, it doesn’t make the statement true. The Bears started from their own 8 yard line after the missed 4th down, and they probably start from their own 35 if we take the 3.

They drive 80 yards on the next drive. You can just as easily assume that those 80 yards would have subsequently resulted in 7 points for Chicago instead of the 0 that they ended up with after failing their own 4th down.

Anyone thinking every time we fail a 4th down in FG range and bypass the FG that we could have simply added “3” to our final score and everything else would have remained the same is making false equivalencies.

I can period, full stop all day long, and it doesn't mean I'm incorrect. We've lost 2-3 games this year, if memory serves, because MLF refused to kick FGs early. To me, it is psychologically defeating to work so hard, and walked away with nothing on early drives. Yes, the Bears went 3 and out on their drive, and we went down and kicked a FG. WHICH LIKELY MEANS, we could have been up 6 points, rather than three.

Here is the ONLY ABSOLUTE, we had a gimme 3 points, and MLF passed on it. EVERYTHING ELSE, is conjecture.

One other point someone else mentioned. If the refs would start calling the holding on Parsons, the80s results would be catastrophic for opposing offenses. That guy is getting mugged on EVERY PLAY!

 

[scooter_1954]

Oh, one other point, RMontro made, and I'd like to add my 2 cents. While I agree, the Bears are better than we anticipated, I also believe they (like the Vikings last year) have benefited from unbelievable luck.
They have, I believe i heard, 6 come from behind victories. Translation, they're not as good as their record indicates. We strangled them for 58 minutes in Chicago, until the fateful error by Doubs, leading to one of the most unlikely victories I've ever seen. One could argue, great teams find a way to win, one could also realize, sometimes teams just get lucky and win games they shouldn't have. We are one mishandled onside kick, from being undefeated in the division, and being in first place, after dismantling Chicago at home.

 

[scooter_1954]

Really good points and assessments here.

My point certainly isn’t to say you should never “take the points”.

My point is simply that there are way too many variables and factors to reduce it to a “should always kick” or “should always go for it.” And you certainly can’t just assume that failing a 4th down in FG range means you have a net -3 points for the rest of the game. Again, way too many variables.

Smart coaches are using all of those variables to help them decide on a case by case basis. Some may lean aggressive or lean conservative, but every individual scenario should still stand alone based on the game situation.

I know we may not agree with everything our head coaches do, but I think we can all agree that they did not get to where they are by being a moron about football. If the best decision was truly to take the 3 points, every time, they’d all be doing it, every time, especially in this analytical age.

And respectfully, I disagree. Passing up the point blank FG and failing on the 4th down attempt, is a -3 points ALL DAY LONG. Every thing that happens thereafter, is simply a scientific wild *** guess. We don't know the kick returner wouldn't fumble. What we DO KNOW, is we had zero points, when we could have had 3. And it's happened on several occasions this year, and it distresses me. YMMV!