jason

1. It was definitely 2nd and 1. 2. 2nd and 1 is tradtionally a down you can go for a shot. You get to take a chance at breaking the opponents' back. You do this because you are confident a first down can be made on 3rd down if the 2nd down play fails. 3. Kellen Davis didn't come back to the ball. Poor effort. 4. J'amarcus Webb COMPLETELY blew his assignment and didn't even flinch at the single Raider player in the area. Atrocious effort. 5. Hanie put a little too much under the pass. It floated up there for quite some time. 6. All but two guys on the Oakland D were going the other way with the misdirection. It's a good play call precisely because the running game was working pretty well. 7. If the one Oakland player, who Webb failed to block, isn't there, the play walks in for a TD. The only item from above that is even remotely up for debate is number 7.

I always wondered if I would see it as you do when I'm at the game. When I watch on TV, I think your ratings are pretty close to accurate. But having been at this game, I can tell you the OL grade is too high. You know I would focus attention there, and there was consistent pressure on passing plays, with at least one player failing consistently. Louis might deserve the B- (or A+) for his effort, but the entire OL does not. As for your analysis of the throwback screen, I just have to disagree. Yes it was critical as far as impacting the game, but it wasn't really a bad call. It's similar to a play-action rollout, in that when it works it's a wide open TD. When it doesn't, the QB gets demolished. As I noted in my postgame thoughts, the play was designed well, and nearly the entire Oakland defense was on the other side of the field. When the play was developing I was convinced it was a TD. The problem, of course, is that Webb completely blew his assignment and let one guy run right past. Easy 5 yard difference when Webb initially disengaged from this DL assignment, and yet he didn't even flinch towards the guy. Webb has bad vision, bad blocking, bad timing, and bad feet. He's a "get off the bus" player. Look at the replay and you'll see all of what I've said is true. This is one of those times when a Lovie-ism is accurate: "We need to execute better." The call worked; the player execution didn't.

1. Knox is the most hot or cold player in the NFL. One play he's falling down, the next he's running the wrong route, the next he's burning a DB for an incredible catch. He's incredibly frustrating. And just like I documented last year, his bad habits are directly responsible for INTs. 2. The OL still sucks at pass protection. Bad. It seemed that nearly every play Hanie dropped back there was pressure of some kind. There were maybe a handful of solid pockets the entire game in which actual pressure of the impression of pressure (i.e. the entire OL getting shoved back) didn't happen. 3. Roy Williams was open several times without a pass thrown his way. This was surprising. He comes out of his breaks sharp and hard. 4. It looked like the Raiders loved when the Bears went to a cover-2 zone. That FB pass wasn't a fluke. It was in that "skinny post" seam found just beyond the MLB and between the safeties. 5. The 80-yard fluke punt was wind-aided. The wind was blowing that way the entire game. I know this isn't a huge shock, but it was a back-breaker at the time. 6. One of the long runs to the visitor side by Bush contained an atrocious non-call for holding. Peppers got straight up bear-hugged. It was so blatant that the Raiders fans behind me were already upset before the end of the play because they knew it would be a hold. It wasn't. 7. Jennings is not good one-on-one. He's the one who got burned for the pass to Murphy, and if his side was the first read on every play, it would have happened more frequently. In other words, he got shucked ah the line of scrimmage nearly every time I foced my attention his way. 8. The play that I'm sure many hated (the roll out pass back to the TE that went for a long INT return) wasn't a bad play for the time, in my opinion. The passing game was just beginning to click, first of all. Secondly, the play was a misdirection that 91% worked. Why 91%? Because one defensive player made a great read, and an even better break on the ball. If you want to get mad at anyone for the play, get mad at Webb. He's damn near blind. He released from his DLine assignment at about the 10yard line and had over 5 yards to hit Curry, who made the big play. If Webb does his job instead of just wandering around like a fat zombie, the play goes for a TD to the weak side. An easy TD at that. When the unorthodox works, everyone is a fan. When it doesn't, everyone is a critic. 9. GREAT EFFORT by Louis on the INT return. At least one guy on the OL has his head on straight. I'm now firmly on the Lance Louis fan club for that play alone. 10. Hanie is average at best. The OL will have to make him feel a lot more comfortable for this team to do well the rest of the season. Either that or the running game will have to have huge numbers. Raiders stadium/fans info: -Fans are very energetic. There is a good vibe, a football vibe, throughout the entire place. -The dangerous aspect is overrated and exaggerated. -Many fans were quite nice, and intelligent. They seemed no different than any other fan base I've ever been around. -They stand the entire game. Very rude and very stupid. I could see, but others with me couldn't. I saw more than one person sitting down and watching the jumbotron the entire game. -Worst stadium hotdog I've ever had. Period. Scorching hot, pre-wrapped, a bun that's both soggy and rock-hard on opposing sides, and a taste that really reminds you you're eating pig anus, ears, and assorted parts. -No smoking allowed, but apparently it's quite common for people to light up cigarettes as well as marijuana. Rude and illegal. Security didn't even show up. This was very disappointing to me. -Exiting the stadium is a freaking nightmare. One bridge leads out the visitor side of the field to BART and other exit situations. Both ends of the field funnel into the bridge. Unfortunately the funnel lanes are set up as about 10 feet wide, and the tunnel can't be more than 15 feet wide. It's crime and danger just waiting to happen. If the Raiders had lost, I could see potential problems all around. Having been to roughly 30 pro stadiums for baseball and football all over the country, I can unequivocally say it's the worst situation I've ever seen. Nearly ruined the entire experience. That's how bad it was. Wish the Bears had won. But they played til the end and gave me a good game.

That's the correct call, unfortunately.

Agreed. I said this a loooong time ago. But for some reason he's ignored...just like his entire career.

Wouldn't that be GREAT! I'm sick of seeing the players come up with huge wads of sod in their facemasks. And I'm sure everyone in the league hates the field (as noted numerous times).

Just about none of it looked like man coverage to me. It looked like zone or cover-2 on the plays they got burned, and one of them may have been a single-high safety. It's no coincidence that one of the key places to attack the cover-2 (i.e. just beyond the CB and towards the sideline away from the safety) was exploited more than one time.

Jesus Freaking Christ dude, are you serious? The play call was great, the protection was great, the pass was great, but Johnny Knox fell on his ass. Period. Your displeasure is severely misplaced. If anything we should be upset that the football gods apparently hate the Chicago Bears and love the Packers. Never have I seen a team with less luck (Bears) rival a team with more luck (Packers).

Agreed on all points. I really enjoyed the win. It's just too bad Tillman, the zone-based defense, and the safeties got exposed by Rivers and Jackson. Otherwise it was a great game.

+1

Things I don't know: 1. If the thumb is actually broken 2. When it exactly happened 3. How long Jay played after the injury 4. Whether or not he'll get surgery 5. How long he'll be out, if at all Things I do know: 1. If the rest of the regular season rests in Caleb Hanie's hands, ever defense the Bears play against is going to stack the box, eliminate Forte, and dare Hanie to throw the ball 2. The Bears will not be nearly as effective on offense 3. The Bears will be in trouble of losing a Wild Card spot

Lovie should have challenged that last catch. WTF was he doing? The WR had two feet and a hand on the ground when the ball started moving, AND the Bears had conclusive possession after the fumble. Lucky the FG was missed. That's a bullet dodged.

I'll respond in list format to make it easy. 1. I think Martz actually gameplans well, and has good balance, but there are plays that just don't work because of player deficiencies. Naturally this leads to adjustments and problems. 2. I agree with the thoughts on audibles, but more than one expert of this offense says they have audibles, but they are simply called something else. I can't recall at the current time, but it comes down to having options. 3. I hate the time mismanagement problems. But I don't know exactly who or what is causing the delays. If we ever conclusively find out, I'll be shocked. 4. Agreed about Jay as WR during Wildcat. If using the Wildcat, bring in an extra WR. 5. I don't have a problem with Davis on the HB-pass play. The TE is often open on misdirection plays (i.e. rollouts, HB-pass, etc.)

Plain and simple: This game scares me.

Dude...the reason I used Noots' Notes as a basis for comparison and grading is that it's impartial. I have no input into his rankings, and it's the closest I have to give some equating between the OL and the WRs, and whether one has performed better than the other this season. I contend the OL has done worse, and you contend the WRs have done worse. Noots' Notes lean more towards my side of the debate. This all still comes down to the two biggest needs (OL & WR), and which helps the other more. There is no doubt the two are linked, but I guess we'll all just agree to disagree. As long as the OL isn't consistently good (they aren't - the Detroit game was a serious relapse), it severely restricts the offensive game plan and limits the amount of time the WRs have to get open. More time = More likely to get open. Will they catch it? Who knows? But the more wide open you are, the more likely you are to catch it. Would the stud WRs of the league catch it at a higher frequency? Yes. But if the QB has time to sit in the pocket and the WRs have more time to get open, it's a lot easier for them. Until then, even a stud WR on this offense is going to be restricted to a high diet of short routes - despite the few roll outs and other ways to integrate longer routes - because the OL can't consistently keep Cutler upright. And the recent status of Carimi and Williams will probably amplify this problem.

Fair enough. I think the OL played below average to average (if you were to average out all the games into one score). If they continue to improve, the overall impression will also improve. And I think the WRs have played similarly, but slightly better. Look at Noot's opinion for OL/WR in all the games: GM1: C-/A- GM2: F+/D- GM3: D/D GM4: B+/C GM5: D/D GM6: A-/B+ GM7: B+/B GM8: A+/B GM9: D+/C- If we average it out (standard 4.0 Grade Scale) it would appear they are pretty close from his impartial opinion. OL: 2.1 (C-) WR: 2.2 (C-) Going from Noots' grades above, I think it backs up my thoughts that the OL has played less consistent and slightly worse than the WRs, and that the OL isn't "obviously" better than the WRs, even though neither is going to be bringing home the report card to parents for increased allowance. We can agree that both areas need to be addressed, and we can also agree that offensive philosophy change (i.e. chipping, full house backfields, rollouts, misdirection, etc.) has helped, but then it comes full-circle to whether or not making the OL good would make the WRs better, or vice versa. I happen to think the former would more than the latter. You mentioned taking the top off the defense, and I contend the Bears already have two guys who can do that: Knox & Hester. What they don't have, however, is the time it takes to make those plays and 7-step drops consistently work. If Martz calls one of those plays and it happens to be on the wrong side of the 50/50 OL performance, then the play is wasted. And who knows if the DB bites on the next play like that when the OL does what it's supposed to? Since you would agree that the 7-step drop plays don't work, it comes down to the short routes the offense is forced to run, the quick hitters because of OL deficiencies. Wouldn't you agree? If so, then I agree that the only WR who can be relied on to make a catch consistently is Bennett. But I sure would like to see an offense that lets Knox & Hester take the top off the defense wihle knowing that Cutler will be able to drop back and actually make the throw without being pummelled. Will adding a premiere WR who can take the top off the defense change the fact that Cutler won't have time to consistently drop back far enough for the slow-developing plays and routes to work? Maybe on a few throws over the course of the season it will. Let's just hope that both continue to improve, and then at the end of the season when the Bears are giving the press conference post Super Bowl win, we can talk about whether or not the OL improvement helped the WRs, or the WR improvement helped the OL.

But when you or others constantly disagree with me, and say that WR is the priority, that's OK. Right? And I don't disagree with everyone, just people who actually believe that WR needs to be addressed before OL. But that makes me a smart ass and arrogant...even though when you disagree with me the other way it doesn't make you a smart ass or arrogant. Got it. That makes sense. Also, is the point of the message board to agree? To disagree? To change others' minds? I'd say it's a little of everything. I've posted numerous times about the OL, and given stats, facts, anecdotes, and reasoned argument as to why it should be addressed before WR. If the sum of that effort doesn't change a detractor's mind, or at least recognize that distinct possibility that getting OL is better for this team than getting a WR, then I'd say that is the actual arrogance in this situation. (Even though I think BPA will probably force the Bears's hand this offseason because of where they will be drafting and who will be left) As for Martz and the offense in the last game, fine, we agree it's a pretty impossible game to grade/judge. But yet you still question play-calling. That is exactly what judging is. You keep asking me about comprehension, but clearly you don't comprehend your contradiction. You say you can't judge, and then you judge. Sure, being up a lot of points is a great time to practice any play, but there are a myriad of reasons why he wouldn't/shouldn't call those plays. Not the least of which is the possibility of running the roll-out and Cutler turning around to face a DE head-on who didn't bite on the run fake. Did you ever think of that? And I guaran-damn-tee if he gets injured on that play the anti-Martz crowd rushes to post anger-filled rants. Do I think Martz called a brilliant game? No. Do I think he called it just about as expected for the type of game? Yes. Do I think that no matter what he called, some of his detractors would say something? Absolutely.

Touche. I acknowledge a gray area with Hester in regards to this topic of discussion because of his uniqueness. Coming into the pros was like a lot of guys coming into college; he was labeled "athlete" and didn't really have a position.

Good question. I wonder if things have changed up defensively during the turn-around? I haven't really noticed, nor have I rewatched any games. We all know about the offensive changes, but have there been major defensive changes?

I had never heard of it before Urlacher. Remember how incredulous everyone was about him being on IR with such a "minimal injury"?

Try again. I don't believe you've clearly said, nor has anyone else for that matter, why the OL is set up for success. Ignore the WR position for the moment. I'm seriously willing to listen to a counter-argument, but aside from "I think a WR will help the offense more," I haven't really heard/read a very good argument for the status of this Bears' OL being something other than the continual worst part of the team. I've stated I am on board with the concept that the Bears' WRs aren't very great, and would benefit greatly from getting someone with hands in Roy Williams wasted spot, but I've yet to see a compelling argument why OL isn't priority #1. Seriously, I'm all ears.

Interesting. I would have thought the opposite because of conventional wisdom. Maybe it has something to do with a team still "feeling it" from the previous week and the other team being a little rusty. You'd think from purely an injury standpoint it would benefit the rested team.

AWESOME! I'll continue to be an adult and read your posts about how, even though Martz ran a vanilla, run-heavy offense, with a massive lead, you still probably think he called a bad game.

The implication of your initial post, HOWEVER, is that the offense couldn't be expected to do much more than they did. A couple points after that, HOWEVER, you still manage to take a shot at Martz. 1. In terms of the offense, there isn't much to say. It's hard to judge because they were pretty much handed a 34-6 lead. 3. Hey Martz, where were the rollouts this week? THAT is inconsistent. You either have a situation where "there isn't much to say," which is synonymous for "It's hard to judge because they were pretty much handed a 34-6 lead," AND you can't really ask Martz about the rollouts (because it would be contradictory), or you have a situation where you criticize Martz. But you can't do both. If anyone needs a lesson in reading and comprehension, it's not me. It's not my fault you contradicted yourself. Also, in regards to being a smart-ass & having a know it all attitude: This is a message board; people disagree. So should I call you a smart ass and say you have a know it all attitude when you disagree with me? Please. Grow up. Adults disagree. Adults who cheer for football teams disagree even more. Adults who care for and cheer for the Bears as much as we all do are going to disagree even more than that. It's what people do when they care deeply about something and believe it can be improved. But I find it humorous that you try to condemn me for saying the word shit, but you actively call me a smart ass. Yet another contradiction. As for the bold, underline, etc., there is no other way to place emphasis on words while typing. Besides, isn't that why they're available to use? By the way, this just in, the Bears OL didn't play well against the Lions. Regardless of how some fans think the Bears OL is progressing or doing right now, if they believe the Bears don't badly need to address OL, then, it absolutely does make them wrong and make me right. Whether you think WR is a position of greater need is up for debate, and I can respect your opinion while continually disagreeing with it. Finally, yes, they do need help in the scouting and drafting departments. But that weak "you should apply for the job" argument is so ignorant that I won't even respond to it.