Studs n duds Bear meat

[adambr2]

Duds: Rashan Gary, Lukas Van Ness.

Gary told us to just watch what they’d do without Micah.

Yep, we see Rashan, we see. It’s exactly what we expected.

 

[rdawsoniii]

Think they will beat the Bears with seeding on the line? And the Vikings?

Yep.

 

[BrokenArrow]

The Packers are not making the playoffs. They will have to win the last two….I don’t see it.

False.

 

[milani]

I truly think the Bears just won their last game this year. We'll likely see them or the Lions again in 3 weeks.

That was a quality I noticed about them the entire season. Johnson has definitely changed the attitude there.

 

[rdawsoniii]

False.

We’ll find out soon enough.

 

[milani]

Yep.

Both on the road.

 

[rdawsoniii]

Both on the road.

Yep.

 

[BrokenArrow]

That was a quality I noticed about them the entire season. Johnson has definitely changed the attitude there.

Not sure how this relates to what I posted unless I missed it. I'm saying I don't see the bears beating SF and I don't see them beating the Lions. Campbell knows Johnson inside and out and I think the Lions win.

 

[BrokenArrow]

We’ll find out soon enough.

No, there's no finding out at all. You stated that we have to win both games to make the playoffs. That statement is simply not true. There are a couple ways we can get in and lose both of them and several ways we get in if we win one of them.

 

[rdawsoniii]

No, there's no finding out at all. You stated that we have to win both games to make the playoffs. That statement is simply not true. There are a couple ways we can get in and lose both of them and several ways we get in if we win one of them.

I understand the math and the possibilities. My statement that the Packers need to win out is based on my belief the Lions will win out.

 

[milani]

Not sure how this relates to what I posted unless I missed it. I'm saying I don't see the bears beating SF and I don't see them beating the Lions. Campbell knows Johnson inside and out and I think the Lions win.

Didn't you post that the Bears win because they play for 60 minutes whereas we do not?

 

[chemist]

Not really. If anyone thinks red zone stats are more important than points, then I'm not sure that person is thinking straight. Joe Gibbs once said he would never, ever apologize for putting points on the board.

Thinking your way we lose the 2nd lions game by Not taking the chance on 4th downs to go for TDs and instead settling for FGs

 

[pacmaniac]

It's not all on him. If MLF understood the value of a FG he wouldn't have been put in that position to begin with. You never leave points on the field when you have a chance to go up early on the road.

Even if MLF takes the early FG, we'd be up 19-6 instead of 16-6. Then if the Bears had scored a TD, they'd still be doing the onside kick.

 

[milani]

Even if MLF takes the early FG, we'd be up 19-6 instead of 16-6. Then if the Bears had scored a TD, they'd still be doing the onside kick.

I think that had the Bears still had 3 timeouts they may have kicked off and forced the punt. Plus they kicked the FG after losing the 2 minute warning. The onside kick should have been considered a gift by giving us the ball near midfield.

 

[adambr2]

People have got to stop just assuming that you can just add 3 points to our overall score if we had taken the early 3 and everything else remains the same.

The Bears started that following drive from their own 8 after the missed 4th down. If we take the 3, they probably start the drive from their own 35.

They gained 80 yards of field position on the next drive even after the botched snap. How do we know they still end up with 0? How do we know they wouldn’t have taken advantage of the better field position and gotten 7?

 

[Sanguine camper]

Not really. If anyone thinks red zone stats are more important than points, then I'm not sure that person is thinking straight. Joe Gibbs once said he would never, ever apologize for putting points on the board.

When a team fails in the red zone, it's still important to salvage a FG than compound the failure and walk away with nothing. Kicking a FG can still be the right choice even though the offense failed to capitalize on its field position with a TD.

Like Gibbs stated It's important to come away with points but if the red zone failures get too frequent, savaging just FG's is a recipe for a loss.

 

[milani]

People have got to stop just assuming that you can just add 3 points to our overall score if we had taken the early 3 and everything else remains the same.

The Bears started that following drive from their own 8 after the missed 4th down. If we take the 3, they probably start the drive from their own 35.

They gained 80 yards of field position on the next drive even after the botched snap. How do we know they still end up with 0? How do we know they wouldn’t have taken advantage of the better field position and gotten 7?

Very true. And if we were up 19-6 I believe they pass on a FG and go for it. But it adds up to 2 failed opportunities. No points on the 1st drive and no points in the 3rd quarter drive when in the red zone. John Madden said always take the points if you can. And he had one of the best offensive lines in history. Teams are so embarrassed by kicking a FG on 4th and 1 or 2. But come later in the game those 3 points can look valuable.
In the 2003 playoffs the Packers had a 1st and goal at the 2 minute warning. They Eagles stopped us 4 straight. We lost THAT game in OT. An Eagle poster after the game told me " Gotta take the points. "

 

[adambr2]

Not really. If anyone thinks red zone stats are more important than points, then I'm not sure that person is thinking straight. Joe Gibbs once said he would never, ever apologize for putting points on the board.

The game has changed since Joe Gibbs was coaching. Kickers are deadly accurate from 55+ regularly and starting field position is closer to the 35 yard line rather than the 20. Where teams would once have to go 50 yards to get into FG position, they now need to only go 25.

This mentality disregards the value of field position. When you take the points on 4th and goal from the 1, you get 3 but you lose the 34 yards of field position.

When you go for 4th and 1, your upside is 7 and your downside is 0 but still comes with the silver lining of your opponent backed way up to their goalline. That field position matters, it has value.

I find that the “we should’ve took the points” argument only seems to come up when it fits the narrative. We “took the points” repeatedly against Denver last week and traded 7 for 3 all day and that didn’t work. No one brought it up then.

 

[gopkrs]

For me, it depends on the type of game your in, on your opponent, their defense etc. But I think it's always good to get something on the scoreboard early. And of course if it makes it a 2 score game or vice versa.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I understand the math and the possibilities. My statement that the Packers need to win out is based on my belief the Lions will win out.

Lions haven't won back-to-back games since September. They're not going to win the next 3. They're more likely to lose all three than they are to win them.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Didn't you post that the Bears win because they play for 60 minutes whereas we do not?

No, that was someone else.

 

[BrokenArrow]

When a team fails in the red zone, it's still important to salvage a FG than compound the failure and walk away with nothing. Kicking a FG can still be the right choice even though the offense failed to capitalize on its field position with a TD.

Like Gibbs stated It's important to come away with points but if the red zone failures get too frequent, savaging just FG's is a recipe for a loss.

That's why every game is different. If you're expecting a low scoring game, you always take the points.

 

[melvin dangerr]

Yeah, but does that make it better, or worse? Either way we're either not up to the task, or else we choked it away.

As for the red zone problems, they were an issue early in the season, got cleaned up, and now they're back again.

I feel bad for Willis, he came in and played well enough to win, but then we bungled the onside kick (deja vu).

By the way, for some reason the Bears dirty hits on our quarterbacks kind of remind me of Charles Martin and Vince McMahon. Maybe a little karma coming back to bite us there, many years later.

I remember that hit on McMahon totally uncalled for and the Packers released him right after that

 

[chemist]

For me, it depends on the type of game your in, on your opponent, their defense etc. But I think it's always good to get something on the scoreboard early. And of course if it makes it a 2 score game or vice versa.

A hot topic of discussion going on whether to go for FG pts or TDs. Its a delicate balance of many factors including knowing your opponent and their weaknesses on defense, how close you are to the endzone, do you have a play or two that you have high confidence in, do you have the personnel to execute those plays and many many more etc...
We can debate the pros and cons of FGs vs TDs and whether that would change the outcome of any game, but for me once the decision is made you need a total buy in from everyone on the field. You make your choice and then live with whatever happens. I have no problem with that.
Talking specifically about the bears game i feel strongly that we had one of "those games" that happen every once in a while. For the bears it became a convergence of several very low% plays, based on the stats, that ALL worked in the bears favor.
Its hard to overcome things like that. You can call it luck if you wish but the old saying of I'd rather be lucky than good seems to be applicable here.

We lost, nothing can be done to change that. Just focus on the remaining games and do the best you can.

 

[rdawsoniii]

Lions haven't won back-to-back games since September. They're not going to win the next 3. They're more likely to lose all three than they are to win them.

I respectfully disagree.