- Thread starter
- #1
nebearsfan70
Well-Known Member
Oh boy, now things just got interesting.
Nothing like raiding the enemy's camp!!Oh boy, now things just got interesting.
Oh yeah!Nothing like raiding the enemy's camp!!
Here's hoping...Fundamental guy…ex QB that puts an emphasis on footwork and mechanics.
Has a chance to build an offense from scratch around what Fields does well. Good be really good.
Only a fool would not want Adams on his team's roster, but I think you have a better shot at winning the next Powerball than the Bears inking Adams. He's seeking a $30m per year contract and some team out there will find a way to give it to him. And this of course is assuming the Packers don't first slap the franchise tag on him. I prefer to focus my hopes on much more attainable targets such as Christian Kirk.There's a bunch of articles and blogs circulating now that we are going to make a run at Davante Adams. Apparently, Getsy and Adams are boys. Adams praises Getsy more than anyone for his development.
I really can't see this happening for a variety of reasons (we've gone over them in other threads). Perhaps we'll test the waters, though.
Did we even run in zone schemes last year? If we did, we weren't very good at it. It seems an outside zone scheme might best fit our running game, as we're not relying on our line to go mano-a-mano against the opposition. Plus it gives our RBs a chance to see what's developing, then find that opening.Detailed hypothesis on Getsy's running schemes.
Did we even run in zone schemes last year? If we did, we weren't very good at it. It seems an outside zone scheme might best fit our running game, as we're not relying on our line to go mano-a-mano against the opposition. Plus it gives our RBs a chance to see what's developing, then find that opening.
If The Bears are switching to the Shanahan scheme doesn't it require smaller, lighter, and more athletic linemen? If Poles is going bigger I would think it would be counter productive to the running style? I'm no expert so obviously I can be wrong?In RPO a majority of your run blocking is zone. The problem is they ran a lot of inside zone and that requires big, physical bodies that hit the point of attack and are aggressive. The Bears leaned towards softer, lighter, athletic linemen and it failed a lot. James Daniels was a great example. He's a good interior lineman. He struggled at times at inside zone because he's not the most physical guy around. He's athletic and needs to be on the move.
I know people think the Bears haven't done much to address the line. But they are definitely going to be bigger inside and they are going to be much more physical than they were previously. That might not equal better right away but it's a step in the right direction for sure.
If The Bears are switching to the Shanahan scheme doesn't it require smaller, lighter, and more athletic linemen? If Poles is going bigger I would think it would be counter productive to the running style? I'm no expert so obviously I can be wrong?
It isn't so much about bigger or smaller lineman as it is about more athletic lineman. Both Borom and Jenkins are athletic not just big. Both can move real well. In the draft, it looks like they rolled the dice on, again, more athletic type O line types if any pan out. As we found out from the Bears infamous pool jumper a few years back... It takes more than just athleticism, but at least it is a starting point.If The Bears are switching to the Shanahan scheme doesn't it require smaller, lighter, and more athletic linemen? If Poles is going bigger I would think it would be counter productive to the running style? I'm no expert so obviously I can be wrong?