Bears @ Broncos, 12/11/11

[jason]

First of all, the Bears didn't play prevent defense. What they ran was their base Cover 2 which is the perfect defense to run in that situation. It's the same thing they did to the Philadelphia Eagles and San Diego Chargers to finish them off at the end of games. They just executed horribly.

 

Secondly, I didn't make that number up. It was shown on ESPN where they used a formula designated to show you the % of how likely it was for Denver to win throughout all of the Tebow comebacks and the number was 3% for the Bears (The lowest out of all the Tebow comebacks). You are really nitpicking at random things. How about the perfectly thrown ball by Tebow early in the 3rd quarter that should have gone for a touchdown to Demaryius Thomas? What about their 6 drops that might have allowed them to sustain drives? What if the blocked FG doesn't happen? How about the missed throw by Haine to Barber that would have gone for atleast 50 if not a touchdown in the 2nd half. You are throwing way too many variables into the situation but only on one side of the equation. You can nitpick at every little thing if you want but to what end? Things happen, and some things don't and the reality is the Bears still had the game in hand with a 10-7 lead and 2 min to go where one play by Barber literally lost the game for the Bears. What part of that do you not comprehend?

 

Wrong. They did play prevent. You can literally find this everywhere on the internet, at the Trib, Sun Times, Bleacher Report, ESPN, Pro Football Weekly, and several other people and places that cover the Bears. It was even mentioned on TV. The safeties were WAY back and the CBs were giving a 10-yd cushion. If the alignment was similar to cover-2, that's all it was.

Stats of the Week No. 1: Against Chicago, Tim Tebow was 3-for-16 for 45 yards in the first three quarters, 18-for-24 for 191 yards after that.

 

The 3% number is borderline ridiculous. It's impossible to quantify the possibility of a comeback no matter how hard they try. There's a reason they don't show the formula, and it has very little to do with proprietary knowledge. There are literally thousands of possible ways in which that statistic is ripped apart (e.g. player attributess, offensive/defensive schemes, cities, weather, fan noise). As for me nit-picking, there is no debating how much time each drive took, and I think you're conveniently ignoring some pretty hard stats that I've presented. Specifically regarding the time per drive and the average time the Bears would have used per drive if they continued as they had the previous 3 quarters. There is no doubt that the plays you mentioned have an impact on the game; I've said as much numerous times. It's actually comical that you'd use that as some of your counter-argument since you're so opposed to the idea that the previous plays affect later plays. Having said that, however, average drive length is not a biased statistic or nit-picking. In fact, it allows for the possible plays you mentioned on both sides of the topic. It's a fair way to assess offensive and defensive approach, or maybe even momentum.

 

If you choose to ignore my posts or disregard them, then I guess there is no point. It's clear you aren't reading them because I've already said that if Barber stayed in bounds the Bears most likely win. It's almost certain. The problem is, as I have said before and you have agreed to in your post (i.e. "Things happen, and some things don't"), the game is not as simple as one play. And the stats show the Bears shut down their own offense in the 4th Qtr and played prevent defense; this ultimately led to situation in which Barber got painted as the scapegoat. But the 48 extra seconds per drive in the fourth quarter say that the Bears and Barber should have never been in that situation. I don't know about you, but to me it makes more sense to avoid the possibility of a mistake than to even get into the situation.

 

Barber is nothing more than the final nails driven into the frame of a house.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Wrong. They did play prevent. You can literally find this everywhere on the internet, at the Trib, Sun Times, Bleacher Report, ESPN, Pro Football Weekly, and several other people and places that cover the Bears. It was even mentioned on TV. The safeties were WAY back and the CBs were giving a 10-yd cushion. If the alignment was similar to cover-2, that's all it was.

 

No, they really didn't play prevent defense. Prevent defense is what you do with a last second hail mary where everyone goes back to the goal line with the exception of the 3 or 4 down lineman. That wasn't the case against Tebow. It was Cover 2 that they played terribly and allowed the free check downs and then forgot how to tackle. The way the Bears played it made it look like they were playing prevent but after watching those drives again, they were always in the Cover 2 alignment.

 

The 3% number is borderline ridiculous.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way but I don't think I trust you in determining the credibility of that number.

There's a reason they don't show the formula, and it has very little to do with proprietary knowledge.

Oh really?? Is that so? Well if you say it, it must be true.

 

 

As for me nit-picking, there is no debating how much time each drive took, and I think you're conveniently ignoring some pretty hard stats that I've presented.

Ignoring what? They were running with pretty much the same gameplan as the Denver Broncos for the entire game. They didn't shut anything down. They stuck with the run from the 1st quarter all the way to the 4th quarter. It's not like they were throwing the ball all over the field for 3 quarters and then reverted to running the clock out. So your stats don't really do anything on the offensive side of the ball. However on defense, they do make sense. Even though they still weren't playing prevent defense, they were playing the cover 2 softer than what they should have been. But I would agree that they should have stayed with what was working instead of changing things up. I'm only saying that the Bears have ALWAYS played cover 2 in these late game situations with a lead and it is the defense to play because you want to make the offense drive the length of the field while chewing up the clock without giving up the big play. And again, they executed that in almost the worst way they could.

 

 

It's actually comical that you'd use that as some of your counter-argument since you're so opposed to the idea that the previous plays affect later plays.

Huh? You're the one throwing out random variables of if and buts when I've been saying all along that if you are going to do that then you must bring up the same variables for Denver, which you didn't. But at the same time why waste time throwing out hypotheticals? Stick to reality, and the reality was, like I've been trying to get through to you, we had a lead with 2 min to go and that one play from Barber literally cost us the football game. Of course if things happened a certain way we could have made things easier on us to secure the win but you can't just say that. You don't analyze a football game like that because there are too many variables that could change the course of the game for both teams. I'm working with reality and reality tells me that the Bears were in perfect position to finish the game off if Marion barber falls down before he reaches the sideline.

 

Having said that, however, average drive length is not a biased statistic or nit-picking. In fact, it allows for the possible plays you mentioned on both sides of the topic. It's a fair way to assess offensive and defensive approach, or maybe even momentum.

Avg drive length is what it is. It's nothing more than an indicator in how successful you are at maintaining possession of the ball. But again, the Bears were doing the right thing on offense by trying to take the game out of Haine's hands and eliminating his errors. If this was happening with Jay Cutler, then I would be pissed. The best way for them to win that game was to do what they did on offense. Defensively, again, they were awful late in the 4th quarter because they got soft.

 

 

It's clear you aren't reading them because I've already said that if Barber stayed in bounds the Bears most likely win.

Yeah but you won't say that Barber's play actually lost us the football game when in fact it did due to the fact that time would have been heavily on our side by the time Den got the ball back. You are halfway there.

 

 

The problem is, as I have said before and you have agreed to in your post (i.e. "Things happen, and some things don't"), the game is not as simple as one play. And the stats show the Bears shut down their own offense in the 4th Qtr and played prevent defense; this ultimately led to situation in which Barber got painted as the scapegoat. But the 48 extra seconds per drive in the fourth quarter say that the Bears and Barber should have never been in that situation. I don't know about you, but to me it makes more sense to avoid the possibility of a mistake than to even get into the situation.

Well of course, but isn't that the most ideal scenario every team would like to be in? Things don't always work out that easily. Sometimes you have to win ugly.

[jason]

No, they really didn't play prevent defense. Prevent defense is what you do with a last second hail mary where everyone goes back to the goal line with the exception of the 3 or 4 down lineman. That wasn't the case against Tebow. It was Cover 2 that they played terribly and allowed the free check downs and then forgot how to tackle. The way the Bears played it made it look like they were playing prevent but after watching those drives again, they were always in the Cover 2 alignment.

 

Virtually everyone, everywhere agrees they played the prevent defense. In my experience the prevent defense doesn't necessarily have a limited scope of alignment. It usually has more DBs, but the philosophy is what we're all getting at. It's semantics to argues X's and O's on the field of what a prevent is, because definitions vary. However, you at least agree they underwent a significant philosophical change on defense.

 

 

Ignoring what? They were running with pretty much the same gameplan as the Denver Broncos for the entire game. They didn't shut anything down. They stuck with the run from the 1st quarter all the way to the 4th quarter. It's not like they were throwing the ball all over the field for 3 quarters and then reverted to running the clock out. So your stats don't really do anything on the offensive side of the ball. However on defense, they do make sense. Even though they still weren't playing prevent defense, they were playing the cover 2 softer than what they should have been. But I would agree that they should have stayed with what was working instead of changing things up. I'm only saying that the Bears have ALWAYS played cover 2 in these late game situations with a lead and it is the defense to play because you want to make the offense drive the length of the field while chewing up the clock without giving up the big play. And again, they executed that in almost the worst way they could.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're being ridiculous here. At no other time during the game did the Bears run on 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd down, and they only ran 3 consecutive runs a few times during the entire game. Furthermore, you can't argue that what they did wasn't a change, here's why:

 

2nd to last drive

1/10 - 1 yard run

2/9 - 2 yard run

3/7 - run that didn't get the first down

 

1st to last drive

1/10 - negative 1 yard run

2/11 - 1 yard run

3/10 - run that didn't get the first down

 

Last drive

1/10 - 0 yard run

2/10 - 5 yard run

3/5 - run that didn't get the first down

 

I'm sorry if you don't want to take your head out of the sand, but 3/7, 3/10, and 3/5 are not normally running downs. 3/5 is the only one that's even remotely up for debate.

 

The Bears absolutely shut down the offense and played not to lose.

 

Avg drive length is what it is. It's nothing more than an indicator in how successful you are at maintaining possession of the ball. But again, the Bears were doing the right thing on offense by trying to take the game out of Haine's hands and eliminating his errors. If this was happening with Jay Cutler, then I would be pissed. The best way for them to win that game was to do what they did on offense. Defensively, again, they were awful late in the 4th quarter because they got soft.

 

In a very limited view of football maybe that's what TOP is, but in the real world TOP can signify, among other things, if a team is primarily run-oriented or pass-oriented, if a team scores quickly or drags out drives, and if a team gets a short-field advantage very often. In this case, the TOP clearly signifies what the drive break down above displays: The Bears shut their offense down. The combination of play choice, down and distance, and TOP is irrefutable. That's what they did.

 

Yeah but you won't say that Barber's play actually lost us the football game when in fact it did due to the fact that time would have been heavily on our side by the time Den got the ball back. You are halfway there.

 

Well of course, but isn't that the most ideal scenario every team would like to be in? Things don't always work out that easily. Sometimes you have to win ugly.

 

In a linear world, where nothing affects anything else, yes, Barber's play cost the Bears the win. But that's not how the real world works, much less football. As I've proven above, the offensive changes at the very least affected the Bears negatively, and those extra 48 seconds per drive (on average) shaved off the game clock would have nullified Barber's actions. A good coach coaches his team in such a way that the negative what-ifs of late game scenarios get eliminated before they become possibilities. The Bears coaches didn't do that, and the result is Barber's mistake. Not the other way around.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're being ridiculous here. At no other time during the game did the Bears run on 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd down, and they only ran 3 consecutive runs a few times during the entire game. Furthermore, you can't argue that what they did wasn't a change, here's why:

 

2nd to last drive

1/10 - 1 yard run

2/9 - 2 yard run

3/7 - run that didn't get the first down

 

1st to last drive

1/10 - negative 1 yard run

2/11 - 1 yard run

3/10 - run that didn't get the first down

 

Last drive

1/10 - 0 yard run

2/10 - 5 yard run

3/5 - run that didn't get the first down

 

I'm sorry if you don't want to take your head out of the sand, but 3/7, 3/10, and 3/5 are not normally running downs. 3/5 is the only one that's even remotely up for debate.

So you wanted them to throw the ball with Caleb Haine at quarterback? Who's to say he doesn't have another Oakland like play on a screen that goes for 60 yards in the other direction for a touchdown? With a quarterback as bad as Haine, you have no choice other than to try to minimize his mistakes throwing the ball and letting Barber and Bell carry the offense. It's not uncommon for a team to try and run the clock out with a lead late in the 4th quarter, ESPECIALLY when you are going up against an offense that has a hard time scoring. If the Bears had Cutler I guarantee you things would have been run differently but you can't fault the Bears for running out with a conservative gameplan with the garbage they have for a QB. Even if they were to mix a pass in here and there in those final drives, there is probably just as good of a chance it's incomplete as it is them picking up a first down running the ball.

 

In a very limited view of football maybe that's what TOP is, but in the real world TOP can signify, among other things, if a team is primarily run-oriented or pass-oriented, if a team scores quickly or drags out drives, and if a team gets a short-field advantage very often. In this case, the TOP clearly signifies what the drive break down above displays: The Bears shut their offense down. The combination of play choice, down and distance, and TOP is irrefutable. That's what they did.

 

Lol well I would say the Bears offense shut down when Jay Cutler and Matt Forte went out with injuries. Does TOP have in their how bad the teams quarterback is? Is that in there somewhere? I'll say it again. The Bears stuck with running the football more so than they did with the pass (38 rush attempts to 19 pass attempts). They only converted on 2/15 3rd downs and you can't tell me all those were in the 4th quarter. They are a bad offense for a reason. Without your two most productive players out there, you have no other choice but to become rush heavy if you want to win games.

 

A good coach coaches his team in such a way that the negative what-ifs of late game scenarios get eliminated before they become possibilities.

So a coach can affect a player from missing a throw or fumbling the football or missing a tackle? A coach does a lot of things but making plays on the field is not one of them. Going off of that logic, there would never be a turnover created ever in the NFL if the coaches had an affect on all negative plays.

[jason]

So you wanted them to throw the ball with Caleb Haine at quarterback? Who's to say he doesn't have another Oakland like play on a screen that goes for 60 yards in the other direction for a touchdown? With a quarterback as bad as Haine, you have no choice other than to try to minimize his mistakes throwing the ball and letting Barber and Bell carry the offense. It's not uncommon for a team to try and run the clock out with a lead late in the 4th quarter, ESPECIALLY when you are going up against an offense that has a hard time scoring. If the Bears had Cutler I guarantee you things would have been run differently but you can't fault the Bears for running out with a conservative gameplan with the garbage they have for a QB. Even if they were to mix a pass in here and there in those final drives, there is probably just as good of a chance it's incomplete as it is them picking up a first down running the ball.

 

Lol well I would say the Bears offense shut down when Jay Cutler and Matt Forte went out with injuries. Does TOP have in their how bad the teams quarterback is? Is that in there somewhere? I'll say it again. The Bears stuck with running the football more so than they did with the pass (38 rush attempts to 19 pass attempts). They only converted on 2/15 3rd downs and you can't tell me all those were in the 4th quarter. They are a bad offense for a reason. Without your two most productive players out there, you have no other choice but to become rush heavy if you want to win games.

 

So a coach can affect a player from missing a throw or fumbling the football or missing a tackle? A coach does a lot of things but making plays on the field is not one of them. Going off of that logic, there would never be a turnover created ever in the NFL if the coaches had an affect on all negative plays.

 

Yes. If that is the major source of our disagreement on this portion of the debate, then I'm fine with it. I think running 9 straight times, particularly when on 3rd and long situations, is stupid. But if you like that strategy because you think it's better than Hanie even taking a chance, then so be it. And, I also agree the Bears have to be run-heavy without the two stars (obvious), but I don't think that means sacrificing the probability of getting first downs.

 

It's interesting, however, that you support such a preventative coaching move as deciding not to throw, thereby reducing/eliminating the possibility of a passing mistake, but you continue to ignore the other preventative measures the coaches should have taken (i.e. not running the prevent defense, and trying to consume more time on offense by realistically going for a first down). I'm not talking strictly about cause and effect, either, because there is clearly a factor of sequence involved. Obviously the coaching and playing is somewhat symbiotic, but there is always something that comes beforehand and something that comes afterwards.

 

For instance, if Hanie were allowed to throw on any of those 3rd and long situations, we could be talking about a myriad of possibilities. Maybe he would have thrown a pick. I admit the possibility. The coaches avoided that, however. But maybe he would have performed like the rest of the game and the Bears would have consumed enough time to make the comeback impossible. That's a very real possibility as well. In fact, I'd say it's more likely than the INT because they would have had him throw safer passes. Certainly it's an unknown either way, but my problem with the coaching is they changed from what was working on defense and they got ultra-conservative on offense. The combination resulted in easier passes for Tebow, and more time to complete those passes. Had the Bears coaches not screwed up either situation, the Barber fumble more than likely wouldn't have mattered because either A] The Bears would have stopped one of the Broncos drives, or B] The Bears would have consumed enough time to make one of the Broncos drives impossible. Either way, A or B, and the Barber fumble doesn't matter...but that's only if they employed the same "preventative coaching" thought process as they used (successfully because no passes were thrown, but ultimately unsuccessfully because the game was lost) with the passing game.

[madlithuanian]

Sorry to butt in, hell...I'm not that sorry! But anyway, I kind of see this as an easy debate.

 

On one side, I think you're more dis-satisfied with the plan. On the other, there's more dis-satisfaction of the performance.

 

I'm actually of both frames of mind. Had I been the coach, I'd have rather been more aggressive, at least at minimum on D. That's just my philosophy. But given what the staff determined as their plan, it was winnable had the players done what they should have.

 

Sadly, it really matters not at this point.

 

One thing we know won't happen is Smith changing his ways. So pining for something different simply isn't going to happen.

 

 

Yes. If that is the major source of our disagreement on this portion of the debate, then I'm fine with it. I think running 9 straight times, particularly when on 3rd and long situations, is stupid. But if you like that strategy because you think it's better than Hanie even taking a chance, then so be it. And, I also agree the Bears have to be run-heavy without the two stars (obvious), but I don't think that means sacrificing the probability of getting first downs.

 

It's interesting, however, that you support such a preventative coaching move as deciding not to throw, thereby reducing/eliminating the possibility of a passing mistake, but you continue to ignore the other preventative measures the coaches should have taken (i.e. not running the prevent defense, and trying to consume more time on offense by realistically going for a first down). I'm not talking strictly about cause and effect, either, because there is clearly a factor of sequence involved. Obviously the coaching and playing is somewhat symbiotic, but there is always something that comes beforehand and something that comes afterwards.

 

For instance, if Hanie were allowed to throw on any of those 3rd and long situations, we could be talking about a myriad of possibilities. Maybe he would have thrown a pick. I admit the possibility. The coaches avoided that, however. But maybe he would have performed like the rest of the game and the Bears would have consumed enough time to make the comeback impossible. That's a very real possibility as well. In fact, I'd say it's more likely than the INT because they would have had him throw safer passes. Certainly it's an unknown either way, but my problem with the coaching is they changed from what was working on defense and they got ultra-conservative on offense. The combination resulted in easier passes for Tebow, and more time to complete those passes. Had the Bears coaches not screwed up either situation, the Barber fumble more than likely wouldn't have mattered because either A] The Bears would have stopped one of the Broncos drives, or B] The Bears would have consumed enough time to make one of the Broncos drives impossible. Either way, A or B, and the Barber fumble doesn't matter...but that's only if they employed the same "preventative coaching" thought process as they used (successfully because no passes were thrown, but ultimately unsuccessfully because the game was lost) with the passing game.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Yes. If that is the major source of our disagreement on this portion of the debate, then I'm fine with it. I think running 9 straight times, particularly when on 3rd and long situations, is stupid. But if you like that strategy because you think it's better than Hanie even taking a chance, then so be it. And, I also agree the Bears have to be run-heavy without the two stars (obvious), but I don't think that means sacrificing the probability of getting first downs.

 

It's interesting, however, that you support such a preventative coaching move as deciding not to throw, thereby reducing/eliminating the possibility of a passing mistake, but you continue to ignore the other preventative measures the coaches should have taken (i.e. not running the prevent defense, and trying to consume more time on offense by realistically going for a first down). I'm not talking strictly about cause and effect, either, because there is clearly a factor of sequence involved. Obviously the coaching and playing is somewhat symbiotic, but there is always something that comes beforehand and something that comes afterwards.

 

For instance, if Hanie were allowed to throw on any of those 3rd and long situations, we could be talking about a myriad of possibilities. Maybe he would have thrown a pick. I admit the possibility. The coaches avoided that, however. But maybe he would have performed like the rest of the game and the Bears would have consumed enough time to make the comeback impossible. That's a very real possibility as well. In fact, I'd say it's more likely than the INT because they would have had him throw safer passes. Certainly it's an unknown either way, but my problem with the coaching is they changed from what was working on defense and they got ultra-conservative on offense. The combination resulted in easier passes for Tebow, and more time to complete those passes. Had the Bears coaches not screwed up either situation, the Barber fumble more than likely wouldn't have mattered because either A] The Bears would have stopped one of the Broncos drives, or B] The Bears would have consumed enough time to make one of the Broncos drives impossible. Either way, A or B, and the Barber fumble doesn't matter...but that's only if they employed the same "preventative coaching" thought process as they used (successfully because no passes were thrown, but ultimately unsuccessfully because the game was lost) with the passing game.

Fair enough. I think it's time we put this one to bed

[jason]

Sorry to butt in, hell...I'm not that sorry! But anyway, I kind of see this as an easy debate.

 

On one side, I think you're more dis-satisfied with the plan. On the other, there's more dis-satisfaction of the performance.

 

I'm actually of both frames of mind. Had I been the coach, I'd have rather been more aggressive, at least at minimum on D. That's just my philosophy. But given what the staff determined as their plan, it was winnable had the players done what they should have.

 

Sadly, it really matters not at this point.

 

One thing we know won't happen is Smith changing his ways. So pining for something different simply isn't going to happen.

 

You've pretty much nailed the difference that we haven't been able to accurately state in all the back-and-forth. Planning versus execution. Some hate one; some hate the other; some hate both. My major contention is that proper planning can negate the poor execution. I once heard a saying in the Army: "Prior planning prevents piss poor performance." That's accurate in this case.

 

Fair enough. I think it's time we put this one to bed

 

Agreed...until the next time it rears its ugly head.