Tucker out coaching Tman.

[NCChiFan]

Some really good points in this thread. One name that hasn't been mentioned is Lamar Houston. Where the hell has he been over 4 games? I know he got hurt towards the end of the game yesterday but he has been invisible over the first quarter of the season. I hope the man has some pride, picks up his game significantly and earns his paycheck.

Re read my post above... I mention Houston and the fact he hasn't shown up. He has been the single biggest disappointment. Imagine if we had not picked up Jared Allen and Houston was our starting Left or Right End??!!! (oh, wait he is). Emery really wiffed on him.

 

[anotheridiot]

I'm certainly not a fan of Tucker either. With that said, it's a "pick your poison" situation when deciding to blitz vs sit back and defend. The problem is that we don't have the secondary to cover GB's WRs when we do blitz. So when we blitz and the guys don't get there, big plays are the result. I'm not saying we shouldn't have blitzed, a mix would have been nice, but I can see why we chose the approach we did.

There are other ways though, most teams are gonna run stunts to give a chance for a quicker de like young or an aggressive rushing tackle like our rookies Ego and Sutton to cause some havoc.

Every play the DE seemed to go wide, the tackles are going against three. You even switch it up to the ends pushing inside to grab a double and allow a DT 1 on 1.

But if you at least Blitz once a quarter you keep it in the mind of the opposition that you might be blitzing.

I still want us to line up Bostic back where they expected Urlacher to get down the deep middle. We cant get anyone there, so start him there and keep the play in front of him.

We will see if anyone gets signed on the back end this week. Dont know why they signed and cut Hayden in a week, but the recent talk I have been hearing is they want to put McMannis opposite of Fuller and putting Jennings back inside as the nickel. They are waiting for Sherrick to get over his quad injury to try it.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

He opted not to blitz, letting the front four produce pressure...or so he thought. What was this idiot thinking? With two starting linemen out (Allen and Ratliff), you would think he would want to dial up some pressure to compensate for the depleted line. All of this while keeping in mind that Rodgers had been sacked 9 times in three games previous. Everyone knows pressure disrupts AR's game... So what the fuck was Tucker thinking?

Not so fast. Take a look at this:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/05/qbs-in-focus-pressure-and-the-blitz/

Now, yes, "pressure" disrupts every QB, but "blitzing" and "pressure" are not interchangeable terms, as this analysis makes pretty obvious. Against a blitz, yes, Rodgers throws more interceptions, but his yards per catch go up, his yards after the catch per attempt go WAY up (indicating he is especially good at finding very open guys in blitzes). His accuracy goes down a little, but his touchdown rate goes up. I think it's a tough call on whether blitzing Rodgers a lot actually works out for the better.

 

[nebearsfan70]

Not so fast. Take a look at this:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/05/qbs-in-focus-pressure-and-the-blitz/

Now, yes, "pressure" disrupts every QB, but "blitzing" and "pressure" are not interchangeable terms, as this analysis makes pretty obvious. Against a blitz, yes, Rodgers throws more interceptions, but his yards per catch go up, his yards after the catch per attempt go WAY up (indicating he is especially good at finding very open guys in blitzes). His accuracy goes down a little, but his touchdown rate goes up. I think it's a tough call on whether blitzing Rodgers a lot actually works out for the better.

 

[NCChiFan]

Not so fast. Take a look at this:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2014/06/05/qbs-in-focus-pressure-and-the-blitz/

Now, yes, "pressure" disrupts every QB, but "blitzing" and "pressure" are not interchangeable terms, as this analysis makes pretty obvious. Against a blitz, yes, Rodgers throws more interceptions, but his yards per catch go up, his yards after the catch per attempt go WAY up (indicating he is especially good at finding very open guys in blitzes). His accuracy goes down a little, but his touchdown rate goes up. I think it's a tough call on whether blitzing Rodgers a lot actually works out for the better.

I hear you, but we've had 5-6 + years of Lovie's bend but don't break D, and remind me, what was our record v. the Packers in all those years?

 

[richig07]

I hear you, but we've had 5-6 + years of Lovie's bend but don't break D, and remind me, what was our record v. the Packers in all those years?

Lovie's D absolutely shut down Rodgers more than they didn't. You can't really argue that.

The offense under Lovie averaged about 10 points per game against GB. That was the FAR bigger issue. Even in the NFCCG, they were on the field the entire game and shutout AR and company after their first two drives. A defensive score by Raji was their only other score in the 4th.

The previous game in week 17, where the Packers had to win to get in the playoffs, they held GB to 10 points and AR to 0 TD's and 2 INT's, I believe. The week 3 MNF win was the same story, even if we didn't deserve to win that one. AR looked downright pedestrian against Lovie the majority of the time.

 

[nebearsfan70]

Lovie's D absolutely shut down Rodgers more than they didn't. You can't really argue that.

The offense under Lovie averaged about 10 points per game against GB. That was the FAR bigger issue. Even in the NFCCG, they were on the field the entire game and shutout AR and company after their first two drives. A defensive score by Raji was their only other score in the 4th.

The previous game in week 17, where the Packers had to win to get in the playoffs, they held GB to 10 points and AR to 0 TD's and 2 INT's, I believe. The week 3 MNF win was the same story, even if we didn't deserve to win that one. AR looked downright pedestrian against Lovie the majority of the time.

Maybe, but the only stat that matters is his 11-3 record against the Bears.

 

[richig07]

Maybe, but the only stat that matters is his 11-3 record against the Bears.

That's an absolute simpleton way of looking at it.

Lovie's D stopped Rodgers. The scheme worked. It's impossible to ignore. What happened on the other side of the ball is irrelevant.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Yeah lovie's d was one of the most consistent in the league in stopping the packer offensive juggernaut. I wouldnt hang the bears recent struggles against GB on "bend don't break."

 

[nebearsfan70]

That's an absolute simpleton way of looking at it.

Lovie's D stopped Rodgers. The scheme worked. It's impossible to ignore. What happened on the other side of the ball is irrelevant.

Really? How else would you look at? Making excuses does not preclude the facts. Stating that Lovie's D stopped Rodgers is just dumb. AR did enough to beat the Bears, no matter how you want to dissect it. Lovie could scheme and game plan all he wanted, but he results were almost always the same.

So much for shutting him down.

 

[nebearsfan70]

Just to add to my point, In 10 regular season games against Lovie's D AR passed for 2486 yards, 19tds and just 6 picks. Overall QB rating over 100.

Not too shabby.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Just to add to my point, In 10 regular season games against Lovie's D AR passed for 2486 yards, 19tds and just 6 picks. Overall QB rating over 100.

Not too shabby.

your point is basically wrong. Let's go through the Lovie/Packer games, in reverse order.

2nd game 2012, Packers 21, Bears 13. This game was clearly, unambiguously lost by the offense. The Bears offense didn't get a SINGLE 3rd down conversion. ZERO. Only 6 first downs the whole game. We had 107 yards passing. And yet somehow the defense only allowed 21 points. That's a classic example of defensive success. Defense 1, criticism 0.

1st game 2012, Packers 23, Bears 10. This time the offense managed a whopping 11 first downs. Rodgers was held to 211 yards, although he did have 2 TDs to go with one interception. Cutler, meanwhile, had a terrible game, throwing 4 interceptions. But again, in spite of all those turnovers, the defense only allowed 23 points. If you were to ask most teams that if the Packers got 4 turnovers, would you call 211 passing yards and 23 points a great outcome, they would say "yes" in a heartbeat. Defense 2, criticism 0.

2nd game, 2011, Packers 25, Bears 21. This game you can clearly blame the defense for. Even though Rodgers "only" got 283 yards, he completed most of his passes and logged 5 TDs. Defense 2, criticism 1.

1st game, 2011, Packers 27, Bears 17. I think this game you can sort of blame both sides of the ball more or less evenly. This was a sloppy game, 2 INTs on each side. The Packers did manage 100 yards rushing, and we got only 13 on the ground! Clearly the run game was the difference maker, but since we didn't stop Rodgers, I'll give you this game. Defense 2, criticism 2.

3rd game, 2010 season, playoff game, Packers 21, Bears 14. In no universe can you blame this loss on the defense. This game was so clearly an example of failure to execute on offense, I don't think it's wasting time arguing it. Defense 3, criticism 2.

2nd game, 2010 season, packers 10, Bears 3. You really want to blame "bend don't break?" Doubt it. Defense 4, criticism 2.

1st game, 2010 season, Bears 20, Packers 17. This was actually a *classic* "bend don't break" game. Simply classic. The Packers would drive, but every time they got close to field goal range, the Bears stopped them. Or at least enough times to win. Defense 5, criticism 2.

2nd game, 2009 season, Packers 21, Bears 14. Rodgers passes for only 180 yards and zero TDs. I'm really not sure there's a team in the league that would complain about defense like that. Defense 6, criticism 2.

1st game, 2009 season, Packers 21, Bears 15. Rodgers really not much better in this one, 4 more yards, one TD. Again, few would complain about such defense. Defense 7, criticism 2.

2nd game, 2008 season, Bears 20, Packers 17. Bears win, Rodgers has a decent but not amazing game, throwing 260 but with an interception and a lot of crucial third down failures. My money is on defense for this one, Defense 8, criticism 2.

1st game, 2008 season, Packers 37, Bears 3. OK, here the defense sucked ass, as did the offense. Defense 8, criticism 3.

So there you have it. 11 games, with Defense playing well in 8 and even among the 3 where they sucked the offense didn't exactly ring any award bells. Which kind of draws you to the obvious conclusion about the Lovie Smith Bears during the Aaron Rodgers era: they did a pretty good job with Rodgers, but the offense always sucked.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

You opened this can of worms-

2nd game 2012, Packers 21, Bears 13. This game was clearly, unambiguously lost by the offense. The Bears offense didn't get a SINGLE 3rd down conversion. ZERO. Only 6 first downs the whole game. We had 107 yards passing. And yet somehow the defense only allowed 21 points. That's a classic example of defensive success. Defense 1, criticism 0.

Rodgers: 291- 3TD's... You failed to mention that, yes offense sucked- but it's Lovie!

1st game, 2009 season, Packers 21, Bears 15. Rodgers really not much better in this one, 4 more yards, one TD. Again, few would complain about such defense. Defense 7, criticism 2.

Bears kicked FG to go up 15-13 with 2:28 left- Defense had to stop them- they didn't. Just pointing out facts.

2nd game, 2008 season, Bears 20, Packers 17. Bears win, Rodgers has a decent but not amazing game, throwing 260 but with an interception and a lot of crucial third down failures. My money is on defense for this one, Defense 8, criticism 2.

Bears were down 14-3 at the half. Tied it at 17 with 3:16 left and win it 20-17 on FG in OT.

Both sides of the ball have had their share against GB. The Bears Defense was good- no question. The Bears Offense was bad, under Lovie Smith- no question.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

You opened this can of worms-


Rodgers: 291- 3TD's... You failed to mention that, yes offense sucked- but it's Lovie!



Bears kicked FG to go up 15-13 with 2:28 left- Defense had to stop them- they didn't. Just pointing out facts.



Bears were down 14-3 at the half. Tied it at 17 with 3:16 left and win it 20-17 on FG in OT.

Both sides of the ball have had their share against GB. The Bears Defense was good- no question. The Bears Offense was bad, under Lovie Smith- no question.

I wasn't failing to mention game 1, because if you have no offense, and no time of possession, any opposing offense will tally decent stats. Rodgers had a decent - not amazing - but decent stats game, and that's in a game where he had the ball the entire game. Sorry, I don't find that convicing.

As for your second example, I don't consider individual drive cherry picking to be a coherent argument for how an entire game went. If a team shuts down another all game, and then chokes the last drive, maybe they are chokers, but you can't say they played a bad game.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

If a team shuts down another all game, and then chokes the last drive, maybe they are chokers, but you can't say they played a bad game.

Ok... but if a hypothetical QB throws 2+ TD's and then a pick on the final drive that gives the other team the ball for the game winner. He would be a choker. Right? Good game, bad last play... I feel Bears fans would call that a bad game/his fault.

Just making a point. Not saying it's right or wrong. I understand what you're saying. It looked to me like you took final scores and listed them as "defense did enough"- I looked at the game drive charts and disagreed. Simple. You had some good points. And were correct a lot. No dispute.

Hypothetical Defense plays like shit all game gives up 42 points- Offense scores 43. Defense comes up with stop to end the game- In Chicago Defense are heroes.
Headlines read:
D Comes Through!
Not
QB throws for 435 yards and 5 TD's!

Or more likely it would read: QB's 2 picks Almost Cost Chicago a Win.