Studs n duds Bear meat

[chemist]

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.

Abdolutely agree. There were actually 3 different plays that took place during that final sequence starting with the fumbled onside kick and ending with the winning TD in OT that stats will tell you have a very low success rate, yet all three went in the bears favor. It was a perfect storm of unlikely events that sunk us. How often is that going to happen. The bears were very lucky to win that game, meaning we are better than them and if we meet again I expect we will suffocate them again

 

[scooter_1954]

Abdolutely agree. There were actually 3 different plays that took place during that final sequence starting with the fumbled onside kick and ending with the winning TD in OT that stats will tell you have a very low success rate, yet all three went in the bears favor. It was a perfect storm of unlikely events that sunk us. How often is that going to happen. The bears were very lucky to win that game, meaning we are better than them and if we meet again I expect we will suffocate them again

Here's another observation! On the final TD catch in OT (which admittedly, was a great throw, and a great catch), a Bears lineman nearly ripped the jersey off a Packers defender in the backfield. EGREGIOUS holding, and the refs ignored it! Even my brother and lifelong Bear fan friends, saw it and agreed!

 

[milani]

Here's another observation! On the final TD catch in OT (which admittedly, was a great throw, and a great catch), a Bears lineman nearly ripped the jersey off a Packers defender in the backfield. EGREGIOUS holding, and the refs ignored it! Even my brother and lifelong Bear fan friends, saw it and agreed!

Terrible miss. That was obvious.

 

[rmontro]

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.

We had that game won, we had no business losing that game, but we choked it away. And funny how our defense can shut them down until the end of the game, and then suddenly we can't buy a stop. I guess that's part of wearing down the defense, but they just got stronger while we just got weaker. I don't know if that points to us being soft, or poorly conditioned, or not having heart, or what.

 

[adambr2]

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!

No, what’s conjecture is somehow assuming that every single play after a kick plays out the same, when the field position isn’t even the same.

“Everything else is conjecture” doesn’t mean “everything else would have been the same”

Once again, if “take the 3” was truly the best call every time, every NFL coach would do it every single time. And they are far more qualified than you or I.

 

[gopkrs]

No, what’s conjecture is somehow assuming that every single play after a kick plays out the same, when the field position isn’t even the same.

“Everything else is conjecture” doesn’t mean “everything else would have been the same”

Once again, if “take the 3” was truly the best call every time, every NFL coach would do it every single time. And they are far more qualified than you or I.

What is wrong with taking the situation and weather and team we are playing into consideration? But for the most part, I do like getting 3 early. Or if it gives us a 2 score lead or vice versa.

 

[rmontro]

What is wrong with taking the situation and weather and team we are playing into consideration? But for the most part, I do like getting 3 early. Or if it gives us a 2 score lead or vice versa.

This is a bit of a tangent, but when we had Rodgers and we had to settle for a field goal early, it used to worry me. It's always nice to get a lead, but with Rodgers, it seemed like settling for three was a bit of a failure. Or maybe it was because our defense with him was usually so bad we needed the touchdowns to win. The current team seems to play more low scoring games with better D, so getting an early field goal doesn't worry me so much.

 

[adambr2]

What is wrong with taking the situation and weather and team we are playing into consideration? But for the most part, I do like getting 3 early. Or if it gives us a 2 score lead or vice versa.

I agree, I like taking everything into account.

What I dislike is the idea that “you take 3 every time!” Too many variables. Every situation is different.

 

[milani]

We had that game won, we had no business losing that game, but we choked it away. And funny how our defense can shut them down until the end of the game, and then suddenly we can't buy a stop. I guess that's part of wearing down the defense, but they just got stronger while we just got weaker. I don't know if that points to us being soft, or poorly conditioned, or not having heart, or what.

Happened in the Browns game.

 

[Pugger]

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.

There isn't a lot that separates playoff caliber teams so it only takes a couple of screwups to determine the outcomes of these games. Our last game is a great example of this. Chicago has become very proficient at creating turnovers and IMO is a big reason for their success this season. It will be interesting to see if their good fortune continues in the playoffs. Luck can carry you only so far.

 

[Pugger]

What is wrong with taking the situation and weather and team we are playing into consideration? But for the most part, I do like getting 3 early. Or if it gives us a 2 score lead or vice versa.

Yes, especially early in the game! Yards don't win games. Points do. TDs are better but to come away empty handed is worse.

 

[scooter_1954]

No, what’s conjecture is somehow assuming that every single play after a kick plays out the same, when the field position isn’t even the same.

“Everything else is conjecture” doesn’t mean “everything else would have been the same”

Once again, if “take the 3” was truly the best call every time, every NFL coach would do it every single time. And they are far more qualified than you or I.

No, conjecture is assuming that 3 points wouldn't have mattered, and the game would have gone differently if we had taken an almost certain FG. THAT is conjecture. You're hypothesizing about what MIGHT have happened AFTER we kicked the FG, while I am stating a given, that we WOULD HAVE 3 POINTS, and we passed them up. YOU are engaging in hypothesis, while I am stating a given.

 

[scooter_1954]

I agree, I like taking everything into account.

What I dislike is the idea that “you take 3 every time!” Too many variables. Every situation is different.

And i didn't day take the 3 every time. I said, we've lost multiple games this season, because we refused to accept gimme FGs early in games, attempting to score extremely low percentage TDs instead, and repeatedly failing.

For instance, had it been 4th and a half yd, and we attempted to gain a 1st down, that's a different scenario. But we're attempting to gain multiple yds to score TDS on 4th down. These are extremely low percentage plays, and as I stated, psychologically defeating to gain 70 yards marching downfield, only to throw that effort away for virtually no gain.

 

[OldSchool101]

And i didn't day take the 3 every time. I said, we've lost multiple games this season, because we refused to accept gimme FGs early in games, attempting to score extremely low percentage TDs instead, and repeatedly failing.

For instance, had it been 4th and a half yd, and we attempted to gain a 1st down, that's a different scenario. But we're attempting to gain multiple yds to score TDS on 4th down. These are extremely low percentage plays, and as I stated, psychologically defeating to gain 70 yards marching downfield, only to throw that effort away for virtually no gain.

Imo there at least 4 times that going for 4th n short make sense.

1. Higher scoring games. Where a FG is a statistical loss.

2. When the 1st Down marker is inside the 10 yardline. As 1 example against Chicago GB went on 4th n 1 from the Chi6. We missed even though a quick Pass to Doubs was an easy 1st Down at the Chi5. 1st n Goal inside opponent 5 yard line is 4 down territory with a higher % TD outcome.

3. When a 1st Down moves us across our opponent 40 yardline area (or 30 yard line area in non ideal weather conditions. This is an area you’ll often pick up 5+ yards in 3 tries. That means a 1st down is points because it moves closer to a ~50 yard FG try. Instead of Punting and potentially netting 20-30 yards field position.

4. End of 4th Qtr situational where we can end the game if we’re ahead OR we can catchup if we’re behind.

 

[shockerx]

I think you have to look at who the packers are right now, they are not a good short yardage team, and not a good redzone team. Add to that Kraft is missing which made both of those situations much better. If your on the road and its early in the game, outside of the 10 yard line, take the 3 points every time. Do not turn the ball over after going 80 yards on the road. Put the early burden on the other guy.

 

[scooter_1954]

Imo there at least 4 times that going for 4th n short make sense.

1. Higher scoring games. Where a FG is a statistical loss.

2. When the 1st Down marker is inside the 10 yardline. As 1 example against Chicago GB went on 4th n 1 from the Chi6. We missed even though a quick Pass to Doubs was an easy 1st Down at the Chi5. 1st n Goal inside opponent 5 yard line is 4 down territory with a higher % TD outcome.

3. When a 1st Down moves us across our opponent 40 yardline area (or 30 yard line area in non ideal weather conditions. This is an area you’ll often pick up 5+ yards in 3 tries. That means a 1st down is points because it moves closer to a ~50 yard FG try. Instead of Punting and potentially netting 20-30 yards field position.

4. End of 4th Qtr situational where we can end the game if we’re ahead OR we can catchup if we’re behind.

I don't disagree, the problem is, trying to gain a first down on 4th and SHORT, is vastly different than attempting to score a TD rather than kicking a FG on 4th down. Arguably, attempting a TD from the 1 yd line, on 4th down, is statistically far more difficult, than from the 5 yd line, as well. There's a reason a 2 point conversion is significantly more difficult than a kicked extra point.

MLF's confidence in his offense is commendable, but i think overconfidence, bordering on recklessness, is problematic. And I believe it has cost us 2-3 games this season.

 

[gopkrs]

I think you have to look at who the packers are right now, they are not a good short yardage team, and not a good redzone team. Add to that Kraft is missing which made both of those situations much better. If your on the road and its early in the game, outside of the 10 yard line, take the 3 points every time. Do not turn the ball over after going 80 yards on the road. Put the early burden on the other guy.

Also, based on what you said. Throw more in the redzone. I agree with that

 

[OldSchool101]

I don't disagree, the problem is, trying to gain a first down on 4th and SHORT, is vastly different than attempting to score a TD rather than kicking a FG on 4th down. Arguably, attempting a TD from the 1 yd line, on 4th down, is statistically far more difficult, than from the 5 yd line, as well. There's a reason a 2 point conversion is significantly more difficult than a kicked extra point.

MLF's confidence in his offense is commendable, but i think overconfidence, bordering on recklessness, is problematic. And I believe it has cost us 2-3 games this season.

While that’s a fair point to argue, there’s the counter argument.

No risk no reward. I can only think of a few in-game scenarios where Matt got “too risky”. One was on a 4th n 8 and I think he wishes he had that one back after watching his interview.

Listen. No Coach is going to traverse a 17 game season without wanting some do overs. Also 1 play does not a game make. As each play leads to a series of plays in response.

If you make a 4th down your future play calls rely on that conversion. If you miss a 4th down your play calls factor that miss. It’s not like the entire game would be played exactly the same if you kicked a FG instead of 4th down try. I think fans miss that. Matter of fact Hafley just spoke to that on Christmas Eve, so I’m not alone or crazy thinking here.
Also at one point we had serious instability with our Placekicker and I know for fact we did some non prototypical type decisions there.

GB has went through ups and down. I can actually look someone in the eye and say that if GB went to Chicago and Won 30-20 it wouldn’t shock me one bit. I’m not saying that’s my prediction, but it wouldn’t even in the least but surprise me or raise an eyebrow. That’s the type of instability we are. We’ll lose on a last second fumble to a backup QB. Then we’ll go on the Road and slap a playoff contender around like an empty 2-liter bottle.

Now I agree that This team has been bumbling around for 50% of the season. Yet if we go into the playoffs healthy? I like our chances. Especially against Chicago. At any time we could see these players go off. Watson, Reed, Wicks, Golden, Jacobs, Musgrave. It just feels like the ones we’ve lost we should’ve won. That’s not always been the case imo. Now we could just as easily fumble the opening kickoff!

 

[adambr2]

And i didn't day take the 3 every time. I said, we've lost multiple games this season, because we refused to accept gimme FGs early in games, attempting to score extremely low percentage TDs instead, and repeatedly failing.

For instance, had it been 4th and a half yd, and we attempted to gain a 1st down, that's a different scenario. But we're attempting to gain multiple yds to score TDS on 4th down. These are extremely low percentage plays, and as I stated, psychologically defeating to gain 70 yards marching downfield, only to throw that effort away for virtually no gain.

It was 4th and 1 from the 7.

 

[milani]

It was 4th and 1 from the 7.

It was between 1 and 2 yards. Now in either of the last 2 seasons or for that matter 5 seasons against the Bears, you definitely go for it. That likely % of success diminishes in 2025. As good as Jacobs has been in the red zone we have to recall how the Bears handled Barkley and how they forced a fumble on the Tush Push. So you go to the air and they still cover it.
Now we may get to see how the 9ers approach them this week. I suspect if it is 4th and 1 or 2 we will see McCaffrey get it but with a FB in front of him and 2 TEs on the line. Now if the Bears can stop that they should be in the SB.

 

[scooter_1954]

I think you have to look at who the packers are right now, they are not a good short yardage team, and not a good redzone team. Add to that Kraft is missing which made both of those situations much better. If your on the road and its early in the game, outside of the 10 yard line, take the 3 points every time. Do not turn the ball over after going 80 yards on the road. Put the early burden on the other guy.

It was 4th and 1 from the 7.

And we tried to throw it into the end zone, from the 7. As I said, an extremely low percentage play, RATHER than an attempt to gain a 1st down. If we're talking about the same play. You can't grasp the foolishness of attempting to gain 7 yds, when only one was needed? You can't grasp the impact of the lost 3 points? You can't grasp, this decision may very well have cost us the game?

Notice I said MAY, because because that opportunity to score points was lost forever and we can ALL THEORIZE about how the game MIGHT have unfolded! This is what we know, with certainty, we could have scored an easy FG, but we came away with nothing. You're okay with that, I and many others here, ARE NOT!

 

[OldSchool101]

It was between 1 and 2 yards. Now in either of the last 2 seasons or for that matter 5 seasons against the Bears, you definitely go for it. That likely % of success diminishes in 2025. As good as Jacobs has been in the red zone we have to recall how the Bears handled Barkley and how they forced a fumble on the Tush Push. So you go to the air and they still cover it.
Now we may get to see how the 9ers approach them this week. I suspect if it is 4th and 1 or 2 we will see McCaffrey get it but with a FB in front of him and 2 TEs on the line. Now if the Bears can stop that they should be in the SB.

True that.
Interesting thing Milani on that 4th. Leroy Butler showed a nice breakdown of that. Jordan missed Doubs in a shallow route inside for an easy 1-2 yards to just inside the <5 yard line. Now he likely hits traffic so it’s only 2 yards tops though.
Then worse yet took too long to wind up and the throw was a smidge too late and they ran out of real estate at the pylon.
Worst of all Reed broke behind the play in the Paint and was left Wide open on that same side. Almost to a point Love could’ve just floated it in there back of Endzone. Leroy’s take was Love had kinda already made up his mind there. Because his throw was also a slow pitch wind up? he allowed The Bears DE to also affect the play by taking too long as he threw it and it affected the throw just a little as he could no longer step into it.

These are examples of Jordan missing the ideal read. It happens but it can’t happen at the opponent 6 yard line. Take the easy 1.5 yard play there and it’s 1st n goal from the <5. Since Denver we are 1 of 9 in the Red Zone, so imo it’s not us not moving the chains. It’s us not finishing drives or just taking the outlet and goal to go with 4 more chances.

 

[milani]

True that.
Interesting thing Milani on that 4th. Leroy Butler showed a nice breakdown of that. Jordan missed Doubs in a shallow route inside for an easy 1-2 yards to just inside the <5 yard line. Now he likely hits traffic so it’s only 2 yards tops though.
Then worse yet took too long to wind up and the throw was a smidge too late and they ran out of real estate at the pylon.
Worst of all Reed broke behind the play in the Paint and was left Wide open on that same side. Almost to a point Love could’ve just floated it in there back of Endzone. Leroy’s take was Love had kinda already made up his mind there. Because his throw was also a slow pitch wind up? he allowed The Bears DE to also affect the play by taking too long as he threw it and it affected the throw just a little as he could no longer step into it.

These are examples of Jordan missing the ideal read. It happens but it can’t happen at the opponent 6 yard line. Take the easy 1.5 yard play there and it’s 1st n goal from the <5. Since Denver we are 1 of 9 in the Red Zone, so imo it’s not us not moving the chains. It’s us not finishing drives or just taking the outlet and goal to go with 4 more chances.

This is some of why being the road team can have enough of an effect on crucial plays. This is also why the best teams overcome that.

 

[OldSchool101]

This is some of why being the road team can have enough of an effect on crucial plays. This is also why the best teams overcome that.

I thought over the last couple of years we’ve been too risky near field goal range. When 3rd n 2.5 yards needed around the opponent ~40 yard line.
Here’s an area where if you miss but get 2 yards? your still in n play for a longer FG try. Instead we would go for it long and take a -11 Sack or throw an Incomplete Pass. Our Kicker has up to a 55-60 range in a Dome and minimum 50 yards outdoors and with good accuracy. Made no sense why we went away from Brandon last year.

More lately we’ve done a better job getting into FG range and oddly, on several of these we’ve went long and stuck a TD or 20+ type play. Really hard to argue when we are regularly successful.

This year, we are converting those “no man’s land” 3rd n short plays, but then we stall on the 5-15 yard line. Which hurts because we drive 50-60 yards to get 3 points? or even fail on 4th down or fumble or whatever. Zero points? Zero after a 50+ drive has to stop. We also really need to focus on execution in the redzone area

 

[milani]

I thought over the last couple of years we’ve been too risky near field goal range. When 3rd n 2.5 yards needed around the opponent ~40 yard line.
Here’s an area where if you miss but get 2 yards? your still in n play for a longer FG try. Instead we would go for it long and take a -11 Sack or throw an Incomplete Pass. Our Kicker has up to a 55-60 range in a Dome and minimum 50 yards outdoors and with good accuracy. Made no sense why we went away from Brandon last year.

More lately we’ve done a better job getting into FG range and oddly, on several of these we’ve went long and stuck a TD or 20+ type play. Really hard to argue when we are regularly successful.

This year, we are converting those “no man’s land” 3rd n short plays, but then we stall on the 5-15 yard line. Which hurts because we drive 50-60 yards to get 3 points? or even fail on 4th down or fumble or whatever. Zero points? Zero after a 50+ drive has to stop. I’d rather 3 points because in lower scoring games. If it’s looking to be an Arian battle of 38-35 I get it skip the FG, not this year though that is just rare. My suggestion would be to retain some momentum and just move the chains first. As that extra 3 or 6 or 9 points of FG later in the game makes a huge difference.

I agree with all of that. But what a coach must take into account is the opponent and whether you are at home or on the road. Do not apply the same formula for all 31 opponents out there in a given week in a given season. Even Lombardi knew that. He took chances in the 1960 Championship in Philly and failed. He learned from that day. Now that did not mean he had an exact formula for every 4th and short for the next 7 years. Margin for error was still his style.