For once, I agree with carol sleazak

[butkusrules]

 

BackHomeSearch

 Sports

 

Memo to Bears, Cutler: Go for it!

 

Conservative play-calling on winning drive a downer

CommentsSeptember 22, 2009BY CAROL SLEZAK Sun-Times ColumnistIhate to complain after a big Bears win, or for that matter after any Bears win, but what about that final drive? Was anyone else frustrated by the conservative play-calling down the stretch? The game was tied and the Bears had the ball at their 33-yard line with just over three minutes left, and -- silly me -- I expected them to go for it. Isn't that why they brought Jay Cutler to town?

 

Any quarterback can hand the ball off to a running back for a one-yard gain. Any quarterback can complete a short pass that essentially serves as a run play. But Cutler isn't just any quarterback. I wanted to watch him lead the offense down the field. I wanted to watch a touchdown drive. Goodness knows there was enough time left on the clock, and the Bears were playing at home. I didn't want to watch them willingly settle for a 44-yard field-goal attempt. Only the Bears would pursue a gifted quarterback such as Cutler, then attempt to turn him into Kyle Orton's mini-me.

 

A matter of trustTo be fair, I can imagine what offensive coordinator Ron Turner was thinking. The Pittsburgh Steelers have an outstanding defense, so there was no need to tempt fate when a field goal would do the trick. And coming off that four-interception game against the Green Bay Packers in the season opener, the last thing Cutler needed was to get picked off with the game on the line. I get it -- but I don't agree. Earlier in the game, the Bears ran a draw on third-and-13, basically conceding that possession. The message sent then and again in the fourth quarter: The Bears do not trust Cutler.

 

If nothing else, I would have liked to see them make things easier for Gould at the end of the game by getting a little closer. That wasn't going to happen by handing the ball to Matt Forte four times in seven plays. The Steelers had rendered the Bears' running game useless all day long. Why would the final drive be any different? Sure enough, Forte gained nine yards on those four carries. Useless. And when Cutler wasn't handing off to Forte, he was reduced to throwing dinky short passes. The Bears didn't even try to stretch the field.

 

The strategy worked, this time, thanks to Gould. But I hope the Bears don't make a habit of it. When you have a talent like Cutler, you should aim higher than getting into long-range field goal territory. Shouldn't you?

 

With the defense looking better than anticipated -- and much of the credit goes to coach Lovie Smith, who has taken over the play-calling duties -- the Bears have a chance to be a good team. But they're going to have to score, and that's not going to happen if they're afraid to go downfield.

 

Everyone should be pleased with Cutler's performance Sunday. After the Green Bay debacle and a week's worth of criticism about everything from his leadership ability to his facial expressions, he needed a solid outing. But at the same time, we know he's capable of more. And he knows he's capable of more. How long will he allow Turner and Smith to handcuff him before he gets antsy -- or angry?

 

Take shackles off CutlerTwo games is not a large sample size. Between the offensive line's struggles and the inexperienced receiving corps, the offense is a work in progress. It should be enough, for now, that the Bears beat the defending Super Bowl champions. Cutler was sharp, Smith called a great defensive game and Gould was automatic. Game balls for all of them. (And while we're at it, let's toss one Jeff Reed's way; his two missed field goals were a lucky break.) But moving forward, what can we expect from the offense?

 

I don't believe the Bears view Cutler as a game-managing type of quarterback, but old habits are hard to break. The Bears aren't used to having a quarterback who can make plays. The Bears are used to cringing every time their quarterback drops back to pass. Cutler will throw his share of interceptions, but the Bears knew that when they traded for him. They need to remind themselves of that fact and give him the freedom he needs to excel. They need to remind themselves that thanks to Cutler, rookie receiver Johnny Knox is showing signs that he could be a special player, tight end Kellen Davis has made the first five catches of his career and Devin Hester no longer looks completely lost at receiver.

 

If the offense is going to reach its potential, the Bears must trust their quarterback. And their play-calling needs to reflect that.

 

BackHome

Font Size: SML

© 2009 Digital Chicago, Inc.

Powered by the mDog.com Mobile Portal

 

[Wesson44]

BackHomeSearch

 Sports

 

Memo to Bears, Cutler: Go for it!

 

Conservative play-calling on winning drive a downer

CommentsSeptember 22, 2009BY CAROL SLEZAK Sun-Times ColumnistIhate to complain after a big Bears win, or for that matter after any Bears win, but what about that final drive? Was anyone else frustrated by the conservative play-calling down the stretch? The game was tied and the Bears had the ball at their 33-yard line with just over three minutes left, and -- silly me -- I expected them to go for it. Isn't that why they brought Jay Cutler to town?

 

Any quarterback can hand the ball off to a running back for a one-yard gain. Any quarterback can complete a short pass that essentially serves as a run play. But Cutler isn't just any quarterback. I wanted to watch him lead the offense down the field. I wanted to watch a touchdown drive. Goodness knows there was enough time left on the clock, and the Bears were playing at home. I didn't want to watch them willingly settle for a 44-yard field-goal attempt. Only the Bears would pursue a gifted quarterback such as Cutler, then attempt to turn him into Kyle Orton's mini-me.

 

A matter of trustTo be fair, I can imagine what offensive coordinator Ron Turner was thinking. The Pittsburgh Steelers have an outstanding defense, so there was no need to tempt fate when a field goal would do the trick. And coming off that four-interception game against the Green Bay Packers in the season opener, the last thing Cutler needed was to get picked off with the game on the line. I get it -- but I don't agree. Earlier in the game, the Bears ran a draw on third-and-13, basically conceding that possession. The message sent then and again in the fourth quarter: The Bears do not trust Cutler.

 

If nothing else, I would have liked to see them make things easier for Gould at the end of the game by getting a little closer. That wasn't going to happen by handing the ball to Matt Forte four times in seven plays. The Steelers had rendered the Bears' running game useless all day long. Why would the final drive be any different? Sure enough, Forte gained nine yards on those four carries. Useless. And when Cutler wasn't handing off to Forte, he was reduced to throwing dinky short passes. The Bears didn't even try to stretch the field.

 

The strategy worked, this time, thanks to Gould. But I hope the Bears don't make a habit of it. When you have a talent like Cutler, you should aim higher than getting into long-range field goal territory. Shouldn't you?

 

With the defense looking better than anticipated -- and much of the credit goes to coach Lovie Smith, who has taken over the play-calling duties -- the Bears have a chance to be a good team. But they're going to have to score, and that's not going to happen if they're afraid to go downfield.

 

Everyone should be pleased with Cutler's performance Sunday. After the Green Bay debacle and a week's worth of criticism about everything from his leadership ability to his facial expressions, he needed a solid outing. But at the same time, we know he's capable of more. And he knows he's capable of more. How long will he allow Turner and Smith to handcuff him before he gets antsy -- or angry?

 

Take shackles off CutlerTwo games is not a large sample size. Between the offensive line's struggles and the inexperienced receiving corps, the offense is a work in progress. It should be enough, for now, that the Bears beat the defending Super Bowl champions. Cutler was sharp, Smith called a great defensive game and Gould was automatic. Game balls for all of them. (And while we're at it, let's toss one Jeff Reed's way; his two missed field goals were a lucky break.) But moving forward, what can we expect from the offense?

 

I don't believe the Bears view Cutler as a game-managing type of quarterback, but old habits are hard to break. The Bears aren't used to having a quarterback who can make plays. The Bears are used to cringing every time their quarterback drops back to pass. Cutler will throw his share of interceptions, but the Bears knew that when they traded for him. They need to remind themselves of that fact and give him the freedom he needs to excel. They need to remind themselves that thanks to Cutler, rookie receiver Johnny Knox is showing signs that he could be a special player, tight end Kellen Davis has made the first five catches of his career and Devin Hester no longer looks completely lost at receiver.

 

If the offense is going to reach its potential, the Bears must trust their quarterback. And their play-calling needs to reflect that.

 

BackHome

Font Size: SML

© 2009 Digital Chicago, Inc.

Powered by the mDog.com Mobile Portal

IMHO I agree wit the post also, but you need to take in to account that we need to win games. By scoring too fast we game the Packers the chance to come down the field and score. We didn't want to make the same mistake with the Steelers. Throwing the ball in the last minutes of the game does not eat up the clock as does running the ball because the clock will keep rolling when you are tackled. If you miss the pass the clock stops giving the defense a chance to stop the defense.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

This article almost contradicts itself several times over. First she(?) is calling for more "gunslinger" type plays by Cutler then realizing that the Bears are more accustomed to the dink and dunk style of game playing...ergo conservative. As several have pointed out and most every coach prior to Lovie has realized, the Bears are and always will be known for their smash mouth style of play, both on defense and offense. The Steelers are very similar in that regard, hence the relatively low score. Neither the Bears nor they could do much with the run so the only alternative is to go pass. With Roethlisberger, he has been to and won two Super Bowls with the team he is on. So for him to throw is almost second nature. With Cutler, the guy has just moved across country to a totally new enviornment, new team and new philosophy. I admit too that he will get frustrated with the conservative play calling. (That was evident as they were driving for the game winning FG when he received a call and shook his head in reverence. The next play??? A handoff to Forte, which like before didn't work).

 

However as Collinsworth, Phil Simms and the "Head Coach" forum pointed out. The Bears are learning what Cutler is capable of and will add more and more plays to accomodate his talents. Heck, I can't blame them for not "trusting" him after the GB mess but after proving himself in the Pittsburgh game I bet things start to get more interesting from here on out. Pair that especially with the fact that he (Cutler) is starting to see what he has in gamesmakers (Knox, Hester and Olsen) and with Seattle and Detroit next in line....watch out!!!!

 

It can only get better.

 

 

"Johnny, Devin or Greg go right there and I will get you a TD"

 

 

[Connorbear]

We won. How can there be any issue with the play calling at the end of the game? Robbie Gould is the best clutch kicker in the NFL right now. They played the odds and it worked. Enough said.

 

Peace

[daa84]

We won. How can there be any issue with the play calling at the end of the game? Robbie Gould is the best clutch kicker in the NFL right now. They played the odds and it worked. Enough said.

 

Peace

exactly ....i love what the bears did ...its like they actually game-planned for once

 

Our O beat the steelers D the exact way you have to....short quick passes in a more conservative, west coast style offense with short 3 step drops. The steelers EXCEL at putting pressure on the qb. James harrison and Lamar Woodley are the best 3-4 LB combo in the league at getting to the QB, and the more we opened the field up deep, the more likely these guys were to pressure Cutler into either making mistakes (ie INTs), or getting sacks. Another reason I think we didn't go deep was because we had no consistent running game to draw the safeties up with play action. Now if you ask me, the game plan in seattle will be just the opposite. Run the ball against a D that got shredded by Frank Gore Sunday, and use play action and your speedy WRs to hit some big plays down the field.

 

I just love that its extremely possible for this offense to beat a team in many different ways. IMO thats the hallmark of a great team in the NFL

[bowlingtwig]

exactly ....i love what the bears did ...its like they actually game-planned for once

 

Our O beat the steelers D the exact way you have to....short quick passes in a more conservative, west coast style offense with short 3 step drops. The steelers EXCEL at putting pressure on the qb. James harrison and Lamar Woodley are the best 3-4 LB combo in the league at getting to the QB, and the more we opened the field up deep, the more likely these guys were to pressure Cutler into either making mistakes (ie INTs), or getting sacks. Another reason I think we didn't go deep was because we had no consistent running game to draw the safeties up with play action. Now if you ask me, the game plan in seattle will be just the opposite. Run the ball against a D that got shredded by Frank Gore Sunday, and use play action and your speedy WRs to hit some big plays down the field.

 

I just love that its extremely possible for this offense to beat a team in many different ways. IMO thats the hallmark of a great team in the NFL

Great point. I have no problem with the play calling, as we did exactly what we needed to in order to win. This isn't college football. You don't points for how well you play. The only thing that matters in the end is who got the W.

 

It was also pointed out in an article that I posted on here that the Steelers would bring more blitzes hoping to "so called hide" the 2 safeties that played in place of Troy P. They are decent at best but have no where near the play recognition ability that Troy does.

[jason]

This article almost contradicts itself several times over. First she(?) is calling for more "gunslinger" type plays by Cutler then realizing that the Bears are more accustomed to the dink and dunk style of game playing...ergo conservative. As several have pointed out and most every coach prior to Lovie has realized, the Bears are and always will be known for their smash mouth style of play, both on defense and offense.

 

I have always hated this concept. If any coach applies this as a rule to their game plan, then it shows their lack of imagination, and, quite frankly, lack of killer instinct. Only a weak willed coach should say something like, "that's the way it always has been, and always will be" when it comes to how the team will run an offense. I guaran-damn-tee that Mike Martz, had he been brought in when available, would not be saying the same thing.

 

Then again, I guess that's why the Bears haven't had an offensive minded coach willing to try new things in Chicago since Crowton...who got ran out of town for essentially not following the status quo of previous Bear offenses.

[Chitownhustla]

I have always hated this concept. If any coach applies this as a rule to their game plan, then it shows their lack of imagination, and, quite frankly, lack of killer instinct. Only a weak willed coach should say something like, "that's the way it always has been, and always will be" when it comes to how the team will run an offense. I guaran-damn-tee that Mike Martz, had he been brought in when available, would not be saying the same thing.

 

Then again, I guess that's why the Bears haven't had an offensive minded coach willing to try new things in Chicago since Crowton...who got ran out of town for essentially not following the status quo of previous Bear offenses.

 

I really dont understand why in the first qt the Bears attempt a long pass to Hester or Knox. Even if it doesnt connect it will still make the D worried about the threat. The Bears have 2 burners in Hester and Knox. I say the first 2nd and short line up Hester and Knox with Olsen at TE and send all three deep. Keep everyone else in for pass protection. You connect on a couple of deep balls that is going to open up Forte.

 

We get Forte running and the wr's keep getting better our O cold look really good.

 

[nfoligno]

Sorry, but this is nuts. Sure, we all want a high flying attack, but it isn't simply a question of trust in Cutler, but in a very young and unproven receiving corp, not to mention a defense that was w/o two starters and has a questionable secondary in general.

 

The manner in which we played at the end was smart football. Smart football is not always exciting, but if it gets you the win, so what. At the end, scoring was primary, but also a big issue was clock management. I swear that if we had passed the ball, and not worked the clock as we did, the media would have been all over Lovie for not managing the game clock and giving Pitt an opportunity to win the game at the end.

 

Further, while I do not have the stats in front of my, I remember during the game the announcers talking about how many deep play attempts Cutler had in the 1st game, and we had a several more in the 2nd. We are attacking downfield far more than in the past, and doing so w/ an offense still getting used to each other. As the season goes on, we will likely see more and more big plays, but lets not pretend we are only dinking and dunking right now. I might also add in there our horrible OL, which makes it more difficult to attack downfield.

 

Look, as fans, we always want exciting, and w/ Cutler, I think we are getting more of that. At the same time, that doesn't mean you don't play smart. At the end of the game, scoring is obviously huge, but so is clock management.

 

Great point. I have no problem with the play calling, as we did exactly what we needed to in order to win. This isn't college football. You don't points for how well you play. The only thing that matters in the end is who got the W.

 

It was also pointed out in an article that I posted on here that the Steelers would bring more blitzes hoping to "so called hide" the 2 safeties that played in place of Troy P. They are decent at best but have no where near the play recognition ability that Troy does.

 

[BigDaddy]

Sorry, but on this one, I'm gonna relegate Carol to writing pieces for Better Homes and Gardens. We were trying to do 2 things, 3 things actually, get into FG position, run the clock down and win the game. Goulds history tells us that IF we do that, he will win it for us. Besides, scoring a TD with 1:20 left would not have been prudent. Too many things can happen. I don't think it has anything to do with trusting Cutler although let's face it. If you are tied, you have an opportunity to drive the ball downfield, minimize your risks and eat up the clock hoping for a FG, the worst thing that can happen is you don't make the FG, you tie and go into OT.

[brletich]

Either Carol Sleazak was just looking for something to fill up her quota when she wrote that, or she is just that stupid...or maybe both come to think of it. As most have said, you drive down the field, eat the clock, and kick the FG to win it at the end. There is zero reason to take any risks in that situation, especially with a kicker like Gould. I don't care if we win by 1 point or 20 points, as long as we win.

[azbearsfan]

I wonder what the article would have been if Cutler "went for it" and threw a frikin pick?

 

Did she write an article after the GB game praising that Turner and Cutler "went for it"?

 

 

Bottom line is you do what it takes to win.

[BearFan2000]

exactly we were playing that drive for the win.

 

First goal is to get into field goal range, second goal run the clock and score with as little time as possible. You have at your disposal a clutch FG kicker in Gould. Once we accomplished our first goal by getting into FG range or on the cusp of it the second goal became primary, milk the clock and get as much as you can without risking the chance to take the game winning FG at the end of regulation. You risk less by running the ball to keep the clock running forcing them to use all their timeouts and and you get to call your time out for the kick with as little clock left as possible. While we could have thrown the ball and tried for the TD we could have also had 3 incompletions, a pick to give them new life, or a TD. To an extent that last drive is similar to having the ball in OT. You only need a FG to win so you're goal is to get into FG range once there you usually use a play or two to center the ball and then kick the game winner. If you get into FG range but elect to try to score a TD and ignore that you are in range for the game winner then you invite Murphy to join your team.

 

The situation dictates how you play it. What we did is standard operating procedure for that situation and most teams would do the same. There is a time and a place to be aggressive, and that's not it.

[killakrzydav]

A game winning drive is a game winning drive period. I will take the win over a potential lose anytime. Let them do all that flashy BS when we are down five.

 

[AZ54]

We were at home and our defense was playing well so overtime would have gone to our favor but it's still a bit of a crap shoot. That was what Lovie faced if we missed the FG. However, he relied on a Pro Bowl kicker to do his job. The only thing I wanted was another 10 yards before we kicked. After the first clock killin run I would have thrown another pass in there to try to get closer. I'm not going to argue because we won and Lovie was right.

[nfoligno]

The only thing is, if you do throw a pass, and it falls incomplete, you leave time on the clock.

 

It is sort of pick your poison. Either you risk leaving time on the clock, or kick a slightly longer field goal. In the end, I think the decision was made that we trust Gould more than the other parts, and I have no problem w/ that.

 

We were at home and our defense was playing well so overtime would have gone to our favor but it's still a bit of a crap shoot. That was what Lovie faced if we missed the FG. However, he relied on a Pro Bowl kicker to do his job. The only thing I wanted was another 10 yards before we kicked. After the first clock killin run I would have thrown another pass in there to try to get closer. I'm not going to argue because we won and Lovie was right.