rockren Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 This seems to be a pretty decent year for free agency, and if we can get 3-4 of this group, I would be very happy: Top Tier Wideout (Free Agent) Dwayne Bowe (81-1159, 5TD) Steve Johnson (76-1004, 7TD) Vincent Jackson (60-1106, 9TD) or trade for Brandon Marshall (81-1214, 6TD) 2nd Tier Wideout (Free Agent) Robert Meachem (40-620, 6TD Jerome Simpson (50-725, 4TD) Mario Manningham (39-523, 4TD) Top Tier Tight End Jermichael Finley (probably franchised by GB) Fred Davis (59-796, 3TD) via Free Agency 2nd Tier Tight End Jacob Tamme - IND Joel Dreesen - HOU Scott Chandler - BUF OL Chris Myers - Hou Nick Hardwick - SD Evan Mathis - PHI Carl Nicks - NO Jake Scott - TEN CB Cortland Finnegan - TEN (1 INT, 75 tackles) Lardarius Webb - BAL (5 INT, 67 tackles) DL Campbell Calais - ARZ (72 tackles, 8 sacks, 1 INT) Jermey Mincey - JAX (57 tackles, 8 sacks, 1 INT) Sione Pouha - NYJ (58 tackles, 1 sack, 1 safety) OLB Erin Henderson - MIN (70 tackles, 1.5 sacks) Jarret Johnson - BAL (56 tackles, 2.5 sacks) Manny Lawson - CIN (52 tackles, 1.5 sacks) Anthony Spencer - DAL (66 tackles, 6.0 sacks) Solid Backup QB Chad Henne Derek Anderson David Carr Brady Quinn JP Losman Kyle Orton I used the following tracker and sorted by most valuable by position: http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/...-agent-tracker/ Something like Dwayne Bowe, Joel Dreesen, Carl Nicks, and Lardarius Webb while drafting OL, WR, DB, LB, DL. Very nice breakdown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockren Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 This seems to be a pretty decent year for free agency, and if we can get 3-4 of this group, I would be very happy: Top Tier Wideout (Free Agent) Dwayne Bowe (81-1159, 5TD) Steve Johnson (76-1004, 7TD) Vincent Jackson (60-1106, 9TD) or trade for Brandon Marshall (81-1214, 6TD) 2nd Tier Wideout (Free Agent) Robert Meachem (40-620, 6TD Jerome Simpson (50-725, 4TD) Mario Manningham (39-523, 4TD) Top Tier Tight End Jermichael Finley (probably franchised by GB) Fred Davis (59-796, 3TD) via Free Agency 2nd Tier Tight End Jacob Tamme - IND Joel Dreesen - HOU Scott Chandler - BUF OL Chris Myers - Hou Nick Hardwick - SD Evan Mathis - PHI Carl Nicks - NO Jake Scott - TEN CB Cortland Finnegan - TEN (1 INT, 75 tackles) Lardarius Webb - BAL (5 INT, 67 tackles) DL Campbell Calais - ARZ (72 tackles, 8 sacks, 1 INT) Jermey Mincey - JAX (57 tackles, 8 sacks, 1 INT) Sione Pouha - NYJ (58 tackles, 1 sack, 1 safety) OLB Erin Henderson - MIN (70 tackles, 1.5 sacks) Jarret Johnson - BAL (56 tackles, 2.5 sacks) Manny Lawson - CIN (52 tackles, 1.5 sacks) Anthony Spencer - DAL (66 tackles, 6.0 sacks) Solid Backup QB Chad Henne Derek Anderson David Carr Brady Quinn JP Losman Kyle Orton I used the following tracker and sorted by most valuable by position: http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/...-agent-tracker/ Something like Dwayne Bowe, Joel Dreesen, Carl Nicks, and Lardarius Webb while drafting OL, WR, DB, LB, DL. Very nice breakdown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 For the love of God.. This line is getting irritating. What routes aren't available? Please tell me because I remember seeing several times Cutler finding Earl Bennett down the field for big plays, and Johnny Knox had a few huge plays against San Diego the week he went down where he averaged 32.3 yards per catch including a 42 yarder. Bennett averaged 25 per catch in that game. Even in the game against Detroit where the offense didn't have to do much, Cutler still found Bennett for a 30 yarder, Sam Hurd for 21 yards, and Knox for an 18 yard pass completion. You're telling me those were all short bubble routes that lead to these scores? Give me a freakin break. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this same garbage you keep repeating when you know it's not even remotely true. The Bears probably ran as many, if not more deep patterns during the season with Cutler than just about any team in the NFL. That's the Mike Martz offense. And guess what? We were pretty darn successful with it during that 5 game winning streak. So don't give me that B.S about "Pass routes available" because I don't want to hear it anymore. Out of all those receivers I mentioned the thing they all share in common is that they are all 1st round picks with the exception of Cruz and Manningham but as far as #1's go, they were all taken in the 1st round. I'm not going to argue that great offensive line play aids the ability for a quarterback to find his receivers but it doesn't have any impact on the individual play of the receiver themselves. We don't have anybody on this team that could do what Vernon Davis did to New Orleans in the playoffs (Does Kellen Davis make those plays?), we don't have anybody on this team that has all the physical tools that a guy like Hakeem Nicks has, we don't have anybody on this team that could make the play that Demaryius Thomas made during OT with that incredible run after the catch. Does Earl Bennett or Roy Williams beat any of those DB's around the edge to score an 80 yarder? Could Knox fight off the defender after the initial catch to get to the endzone? I doubt it. It's just not there. The Moose comment was directed towards the lack of talent at the quarterback position the Bears have ran out there for basically the entire existence of the franchise before Cutler. It had nothing to do with offensive line play. When you have to go back to Sid Luckman pre-Cutler to talk about great quarterback play, it's not good. Moose was actually on 670 the score a few weeks ago to give insight on the Jerry Angelo firing and he went out of his way to bash Rex Grossman when the guys asked him about that very comment. It will continue to be irritating until you realize it's the truth. You can't just spout off nonsense and expect not to be called on it. The simple fact is, the majority of the time this past season Cutler (and other Bears' QBs) did not have the sufficient time to adequately go to 5 and 7 step drops, nor did they have adequate time to read through progressions. It may have happened from time to time, maybe even a few plays in a row when the OL was playing well, but it didn't happen close to consistently. Cherry picking a few catches doesn't prove your point. The plural of anecdotal evidence is neither fact nor data. I don't know why you try to revise history and act like the Bears were going downfield every game all season. They may have ran the routes, but the success rate was severely diminished because the QB didn't have time. My god man, do you even have a memory of more than one week? Every single person on the board was saying that the Bears needed to go to shorter routes because Cutler didn't have time to wait for the longer routes to develop. This is fact. Did you ever stop to think that Cutler averaged 31 passes this year, and for the games they were regular contributors, the following breakdown occurred for the WRs: Bennett - 3 Games - 6.6 Targets Per Game Hester - 9 Games - 6.13 TPG Sanzenbacher - 7 Games - 4.7 TPG Knox - 11 Games - 3.9 TPG Williams - 11 Games - 3.18 TPG Wow, big surprise, Knox had less targets than all the other guys who ran underneath and/or slot-type routes! The only WR he had more targets than was Roy Freaking Williams, who may have been the biggest FA WR disappointment in history. Cutler did not have the time to consistently look for the WRs who were running longer-developing routes. Fact. It's not about how many they ran. It's about how many Cutler had the time to find. Why don't you understand that? And unless you can find me some reliable YAC numbers, it's very difficult to determine the YPC as an indicator of anything other than how a QB and WR worked TOGETHER. Keep in mind, I'm not saying any of the Bears' WRs are world-beaters. Despite the fact that I've been touting Bennett since he got drafted, he is clearly not a #1; he's a damn good #2. I'd love to see the Bears get a legit star at WR, and it's entirely possible this offseason, but the same problem will exist as long as Cutler (or whatever QB is in the game) is under consistent pressure. Tice all but came out and said in his interview as being selected OC that the OL wasn't cutting it, and they needed to get a lot of help (e.g. TEs in to block, 6 man OLs, RBs chipping more often) so the QB had time to find open WRs. Just accept it; it's fact. There were very few times this year, that certainly weren't consistent enough for a rhythm to be had, for Cutler to sit in the pocket and feel comfortable enough to go through progressions and/or wait for longer routes. Knox may have been wide open on a ton of routes downfield, but Cutler just didn't have the consistent time to wait on those plays. If he had waited, he may have gotten one or two more long TDs, but he would unequivocally taken a bunch more sacks and heard a whole lot of "he's holding the ball too long" talk. For the record: Kellen Davis may have made those plays. We just don't know because he was so underutilized in a Martz offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Jerome Simpson would be a nice pickup. I'm not proposing the Bears only add him, they must get one of the big names above, but I'm of the belief they should sign 2 wideouts. I agree. I've been a fan of Jerome Simpson for some time. He could be reaching that point where he grasps it all and makes a breakthrough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 I agree. I've been a fan of Jerome Simpson for some time. He could be reaching that point where he grasps it all and makes a breakthrough. Plus his acrobatics will have the Bears on Sportscenter every week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 It will continue to be irritating until you realize it's the truth. There is nothing truthful about what you have said. You can't just spout off nonsense and expect not to be called on it. ROFL, are you referring to yourself?! The simple fact is, the majority of the time this past season Cutler (and other Bears' QBs) did not have the sufficient time to adequately go to 5 and 7 step drops, nor did they have adequate time to read through progressions. It may have happened from time to time, maybe even a few plays in a row when the OL was playing well, but it didn't happen close to consistently. I've said this before and I'll say it again, when the 7 step drop is the feature of your offense, like it is with Mike Martz, you are always going to face more pressure from opposing defenses than an offense that's more well rounded. History proves this point if you go look at the numbers from previous Mike Martz lead offenses. Offensive lines aren't built to routinely protect the quarterback when the majority of your play calls are built around 5-7 step drops. You look at teams like New Orleans or GB and watch at how quickly their quarterback gets the ball out of his hand. They do an excellent job of mixing the 3 step drop with longer ones and it keeps the defenses guessing. There sure weren't too many times I saw during the year where Cutler was making quick decisions with the ball. And when he was, it wasn't happening enough. Most of his passes were down the field because, as I've been saying, that's how Martz's offense works. Despite all of that, the Bears were still 6th in the league in ppg at the time of Cutler's injury, which is pretty good I would say. When I saw the Mike Tice interview last week, it's funny how many Bears fans I saw that were clamoring over the fact that he's going to get Cutler to throw from different launching points, where you roll him out, give him looks that he had in Denver etc.. Even AUDIBLE! So in other words, he's running a 'normal' offense. I don't think it's far fetched to say you'll see improvement from the line as a whole when they no longer have to run an outdated scheme, but one that plays to the strengths of their quarterback. Cherry picking a few catches doesn't prove your point. You said this offense wasn't successful when they run routes that aren't short. The catches shows that the Bears were consistently getting the ball down field and they were winning those games! The plural of anecdotal evidence is neither fact nor data. You mean like what you have done? I don't know why you try to revise history and act like the Bears were going downfield every game all season. Lol, revise history? If by revising history you mean going back to look at the boxscores of the games that are there for everyone to see, and using them to point out the fact that the Bears were throwing downfield consistently throughout their 5 game win streak, then I am guilty. They may have ran the routes, but the success rate was severely diminished because the QB didn't have time. My god man, do you even have a memory of more than one week? Every single person on the board was saying that the Bears needed to go to shorter routes because Cutler didn't have time to wait for the longer routes to develop. This is fact. No. What YOU said was "They were getting into a groove despite the fact that they were severely limited on the number of effective pass routes available." Which if that were true, then it couldn't possibly explain why Jay Cutler and his receivers were suddenly catching more balls deeper down the field than at any other point during the season. Did you ever stop to think that Cutler averaged 31 passes this year, and for the games they were regular contributors, the following breakdown occurred for the WRs: Bennett - 3 Games - 6.6 Targets Per Game Hester - 9 Games - 6.13 TPG Sanzenbacher - 7 Games - 4.7 TPG Knox - 11 Games - 3.9 TPG Williams - 11 Games - 3.18 TPG Wow, big surprise, Knox had less targets than all the other guys who ran underneath and/or slot-type routes! The only WR he had more targets than was Roy Freaking Williams, who may have been the biggest FA WR disappointment in history. Cutler did not have the time to consistently look for the WRs who were running longer-developing routes. Fact. It's not about how many they ran. It's about how many Cutler had the time to find. Why don't you understand that? And unless you can find me some reliable YAC numbers, it's very difficult to determine the YPC as an indicator of anything other than how a QB and WR worked TOGETHER. Now you are really reaching. Targets per game? What the hell? How does this have anything to do with anything? Yes, Earl Bennett is Cutler's favorite target and Johnny Knox and Roy Williams weren't. Okay. So what? TPG doesn't, in any way, shape or form, signify the type of routes guys were running at a given time or how much time Cutler had to throw to these guys. I really don't know where you're getting at with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 This seems to be a pretty decent year for free agency, and if we can get 3-4 of this group, I would be very happy: Top Tier Wideout (Free Agent) Dwayne Bowe (81-1159, 5TD) Steve Johnson (76-1004, 7TD) Vincent Jackson (60-1106, 9TD) or trade for Brandon Marshall (81-1214, 6TD) 2nd Tier Wideout (Free Agent) Robert Meachem (40-620, 6TD Jerome Simpson (50-725, 4TD) Mario Manningham (39-523, 4TD) Top Tier Tight End Jermichael Finley (probably franchised by GB) Fred Davis (59-796, 3TD) via Free Agency 2nd Tier Tight End Jacob Tamme - IND Joel Dreesen - HOU Scott Chandler - BUF OL Chris Myers - Hou Nick Hardwick - SD Evan Mathis - PHI Carl Nicks - NO Jake Scott - TEN CB Cortland Finnegan - TEN (1 INT, 75 tackles) Lardarius Webb - BAL (5 INT, 67 tackles) DL Campbell Calais - ARZ (72 tackles, 8 sacks, 1 INT) Jermey Mincey - JAX (57 tackles, 8 sacks, 1 INT) Sione Pouha - NYJ (58 tackles, 1 sack, 1 safety) OLB Erin Henderson - MIN (70 tackles, 1.5 sacks) Jarret Johnson - BAL (56 tackles, 2.5 sacks) Manny Lawson - CIN (52 tackles, 1.5 sacks) Anthony Spencer - DAL (66 tackles, 6.0 sacks) Solid Backup QB Chad Henne Derek Anderson David Carr Brady Quinn JP Losman Kyle Orton I used the following tracker and sorted by most valuable by position: http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/...-agent-tracker/ Something like Dwayne Bowe, Joel Dreesen, Carl Nicks, and Lardarius Webb while drafting OL, WR, DB, LB, DL. That would be nice but I think we only sign I big contract, and 3 less expensive. So , realisticly, V. Jac, Fred Davis, W. Gay/CB, Eddie Royal/WR. Then you have to resign T Jennings, and draft a DE, WR, 2 OLs and a LB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I saw John Clayton on NFL live yesterday talking about how he thinks the Saints are going to let Carl Nicks walk and go ahead and franchise Marcus Colston. I'd jump all over him if he ever made it to the open market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azbearsfan Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I don't think it's far fetched to say you'll see improvement from the line as a whole when they no longer have to run an outdated scheme, but one that plays to the strengths of their quarterback. This is really all you need to say. The line will improve with an OC who can play to their strengths. A #1 WR is the biggest need on the Bears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is nothing truthful about what you have said. ROFL, are you referring to yourself?! I've said this before and I'll say it again, when the 7 step drop is the feature of your offense, like it is with Mike Martz, you are always going to face more pressure from opposing defenses than an offense that's more well rounded. History proves this point if you go look at the numbers from previous Mike Martz lead offenses. Offensive lines aren't built to routinely protect the quarterback when the majority of your play calls are built around 5-7 step drops. You look at teams like New Orleans or GB and watch at how quickly their quarterback gets the ball out of his hand. They do an excellent job of mixing the 3 step drop with longer ones and it keeps the defenses guessing. There sure weren't too many times I saw during the year where Cutler was making quick decisions with the ball. And when he was, it wasn't happening enough. Most of his passes were down the field because, as I've been saying, that's how Martz's offense works. Despite all of that, the Bears were still 6th in the league in ppg at the time of Cutler's injury, which is pretty good I would say. When I saw the Mike Tice interview last week, it's funny how many Bears fans I saw that were clamoring over the fact that he's going to get Cutler to throw from different launching points, where you roll him out, give him looks that he had in Denver etc.. Even AUDIBLE! So in other words, he's running a 'normal' offense. I don't think it's far fetched to say you'll see improvement from the line as a whole when they no longer have to run an outdated scheme, but one that plays to the strengths of their quarterback. You said this offense wasn't successful when they run routes that aren't short. The catches shows that the Bears were consistently getting the ball down field and they were winning those games! You mean like what you have done? Lol, revise history? If by revising history you mean going back to look at the boxscores of the games that are there for everyone to see, and using them to point out the fact that the Bears were throwing downfield consistently throughout their 5 game win streak, then I am guilty. No. What YOU said was "They were getting into a groove despite the fact that they were severely limited on the number of effective pass routes available." Which if that were true, then it couldn't possibly explain why Jay Cutler and his receivers were suddenly catching more balls deep down the field than at any other point during the season. Now you are really reaching. Targets per game? What the hell? How does this have anything to do with anything? Yes, Earl Bennett is Cutler's favorite target and Johnny Knox and Roy Williams weren't. Okay. So what? TPG doesn't, in any way, shape or form, signify the type of routes guys were running at a given time or how much time Cutler had to throw to these guys. I really don't know where you're getting at with this. Could you be more dense? Simple ignoring a stat doesn't mean the stat doesn't matter. The fact is, Knox typically runs longer routes, which is why he has less targets. This is directly attributable to how much time a QB has in the pocket, and how long protection holds up. Attempting to make your point based on scoring is disingenous at best, ignorant at worst, because it doesn't take into account rushing, field position, and a variety of other considerations. Discounting targets when referencing the passing game and offensive scheme, and then talking about points shows you're either ignoring stats, or have very little understanding of them as they relate to our discussion and football. Especially when Cutler averaged an 87.7 QBR, 56% completion percentage, 16.6 completions, 13.3 yards per completion, and barely over 1 TD per game during the winning streak. Yes, that's clearly going down field consistently and successfully. You want to talk about box scores, you go look at some for a change. For comparison, the QBs you clearly haven't looked at: Rodgers - 13.5 Yards Per Completion Brees - 11.7 YPC Brady - 13.1 YPC Romo - 12.1 YPC Stafford - 12.0 YPC Wow, another surprise, the QBs you say are throwing short and getting rid of the ball are pretty much right where Cutler is, and one of your examples, GB, actually throws for more YPC. Unfortunately, there is nowhere I can find that accurately reflects Yards Per Attempt, or where the pass was intended to be thrown on incompletions. Also, it's comical that you point to the Martz system as being ineffective at protecting the QB long enough to actually run the longer routes yet then say the OL was doing exactly that. Last but not least, if you don't know by now what I'm talking about, and you literally require me to spell out everything (i.e. putting in the word "consistently" and "successfully" each time a sentence is written), every time, and put in every word, every time, then you're incapable of even understanding the concept to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I saw John Clayton on NFL live yesterday talking about how he thinks the Saints are going to let Carl Nicks walk and go ahead and franchise Marcus Colston. I'd jump all over him if he ever made it to the open market. ^ ^ ^ Combining two different peoples points doesnt prove anything. Briggs has no legs to stand on to hold out. He can whine all he wants but he knows he has no leverage. Tell him to get closer to the end of his deal and if he deserves it they will restructure. I also disagree they need a miraculous offseason to contend. IMO the minimum they could do and be good enough to contend is resign/franchise Forte, sign a number 1 WR, address LT and then add a starter in the secondary (either corner or safety) and defensive line (either tackle or end). To me this is the bare minimum they could do and contend. So...get a great WR, give a RB $8m this year, get a solid/good/great LT, a solid DB, and a solid DE or DT. That's it? Oh man, that'll be simple! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 ^ ^ ^ So...get a great WR, give a RB $8m this year, get a solid/good/great LT, a solid DB, and a solid DE or DT. That's it? Oh man, that'll be simple! All of it sounds doable but finding a LT will not be easy, but needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Could you be more dense? Simple ignoring a stat doesn't mean the stat doesn't matter. The fact is, Knox typically runs longer routes, which is why he has less targets. This is directly attributable to how much time a QB has in the pocket, and how long protection holds up. Attempting to make your point based on scoring is disingenous at best, ignorant at worst, because it doesn't take into account rushing, field position, and a variety of other considerations. Discounting targets when referencing the passing game and offensive scheme, and then talking about points shows you're either ignoring stats, or have very little understanding of them as they relate to our discussion and football. Especially when Cutler averaged an 87.7 QBR, 56% completion percentage, 16.6 completions, 13.3 yards per completion, and barely over 1 TD per game during the winning streak. Yes, that's clearly going down field consistently and successfully. You want to talk about box scores, you go look at some for a change. For comparison, the QBs you clearly haven't looked at: Rodgers - 13.5 Yards Per Completion Brees - 11.7 YPC Brady - 13.1 YPC Romo - 12.1 YPC Stafford - 12.0 YPC Wow, another surprise, the QBs you say are throwing short and getting rid of the ball are pretty much right where Cutler is, and one of your examples, GB, actually throws for more YPC. Unfortunately, there is nowhere I can find that accurately reflects Yards Per Attempt, or where the pass was intended to be thrown on incompletions. TPG really have nothing to do with what you are trying to make out. They really don't. You can say all you want about what you think you know, but you really have no clue. Sorry. Johnny Knox had his starting job taken over by Roy Williams at the beginning of the season and saw less time on the field, which would factor in to the number of targets he gets throughout the course of a game. Another would be, he simply is not that great of a receiver and has trouble getting open. It has nothing to do with the amount of time a qb has in the pocket. none whatsoever. I'm frankly amused that it would even be possible for someone to think that. And, is it not obvious that those quarterbacks you threw out there have significantly more talented players on the offensive side of the ball? Not to mention way more efficient. Most of those teams have a more balanced offense than we do in terms of mixing their passes up (Not the actual run/pass ratio), and whenever they do decide to go down field, it's going to work more effectively with the talent they have on the field as opposed to the Bears. You clearly don't watch much of these offenses or have an understanding of their schemes to say they don't get their fair share of mix between quick/long passes. GB will dink and dunk you for a few plays here and there and then all of a sudden Rodgers rolls out and finds Jordy Nelson wide open for a 45 yard touchdown. And both he and Greg Jennings, I would suspect are probably among the tops in the league in YAC. You won't find a single Chicago Bear outside of Forte, who's not a receiver, in that category. I wish I did have the numbers for Yards per attempt from Cutler because that would put an end to this discussion. The fact that Forte has so many yards from scrimmage when he's catching the ball would bring down those numbers a bit, but if you were to take those out, I bet you the number would be high. Also, it's comical that you point to the Martz system as being ineffective at protecting the QB long enough to actually run the longer routes yet then say the OL was doing exactly that. For freak sake, you have to be one of the dumbest individuals I have ever come across when talking about football, I swear to God. Maybe I have to spell everything out for you since you are not capable of understanding anything outside of your own narrow minded skull. Martz's system is ineffective at protecting the QB. You're going to give up sacks, you're going to face a ton of pressure. There is no way around it. That's the affect a 7 step drop has on ANY offensive line and that's the way it has always been. You are not going to ever find an offensive line that runs Martz's system be in the top 5 in avoiding pressure i.e sacks. BUT you can still be an effective offense despite that, which is exactly what I have been saying this entire time and is why I threw out our scoring as an example of that. You act like we can never run routes longer than 5 yards, but we did anyways and it helped us win football games. Now If we were to decrease the amount of those a bit and mixed in a few more rhythm passes to along with some rollouts/misdirection plays, I think we would be an even better offense. The difference I have with you is the level of severity you go to when you mention just how much we have to restrict that part of the game. Last but not least, if you don't know by now what I'm talking about, and you literally require me to spell out everything (i.e. putting in the word "consistently" and "successfully" each time a sentence is written), every time, and put in every word, every time, then you're incapable of even understanding the concept to begin with. I actually don't believe you even know what you're talking about half the time with all the reaching you do in regards to our debates. It's like you don't really have anything to say so you just kind of throw 'whatever' out there and hope it sticks. Well, it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 ^ ^ ^ So...get a great WR, give a RB $8m this year, get a solid/good/great LT, a solid DB, and a solid DE or DT. That's it? Oh man, that'll be simple! Sign a number 1 WR, doesnt have to be great but there will be a few number 1 wrs available. Then sign or draft an OT, CB or safety and then a dlineman. Ya its not that hard. Resigning or franchising Forte also takes little to no effort. Its a lot better then trading Briggs and trying to draft his replacement and then having a receiving corps of Bennett, Meacham and Eddie Royal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 All of it sounds doable but finding a LT will not be easy, but needed. I think y'all might want to root for Tice to get hired by the Raiders, because I'll still bet that he'll push to keep Webb as his starting LT. He'd probably be content with drafting a backup, but I think he'll push for the 3rd year starter that he's defended for 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 TPG really have nothing to do with what you are trying to make out. They really don't. You can say all you want about what you think you know, but you really have no clue. Sorry. Johnny Knox had his starting job taken over by Roy Williams at the beginning of the season and saw less time on the field, which would factor in to the number of targets he gets throughout the course of a game. Another would be, he simply is not that great of a receiver and has trouble getting open. It has nothing to do with the amount of time a qb has in the pocket. none whatsoever. I'm frankly amused that it would even be possible for someone to think that. And, is it not obvious that those quarterbacks you threw out there have significantly more talented players on the offensive side of the ball? Not to mention way more efficient. Most of those teams have a more balanced offense than we do in terms of mixing their passes up (Not the actual run/pass ratio), and whenever they do decide to go down field, it's going to work more effectively with the talent they have on the field as opposed to the Bears. You clearly don't watch much of these offenses or have an understanding of their schemes to say they don't get their fair share of mix between quick/long passes. GB will dink and dunk you for a few plays here and there and then all of a sudden Rodgers rolls out and finds Jordy Nelson wide open for a 45 yard touchdown. And both he and Greg Jennings, I would suspect are probably among the tops in the league in YAC. You won't find a single Chicago Bear outside of Forte, who's not a receiver, in that category. I wish I did have the numbers for Yards per attempt from Cutler because that would put an end to this discussion. The fact that Forte has so many yards from scrimmage when he's catching the ball would bring down those numbers a bit, but if you were to take those out, I bet you the number would be high. For freak sake, you have to be one of the dumbest individuals I have ever come across when talking about football, I swear to God. Maybe I have to spell everything out for you since you are not capable of understanding anything outside of your own narrow minded skull. Martz's system is ineffective at protecting the QB. You're going to give up sacks, you're going to face a ton of pressure. There is no way around it. That's the affect a 7 step drop has on ANY offensive line and that's the way it has always been. You are not going to ever find an offensive line that runs Martz's system be in the top 5 in avoiding pressure i.e sacks. BUT you can still be an effective offense despite that, which is exactly what I have been saying this entire time and is why I threw out our scoring as an example of that. You act like we can never run routes longer than 5 yards, but we did anyways and it helped us win football games. Now If we were to decrease the amount of those a bit and mixed in a few more rhythm passes to along with some rollouts/misdirection plays, I think we would be an even better offense. The difference I have with you is the level of severity you go to when you mention just how much we have to restrict that part of the game. I actually don't believe you even know what you're talking about half the time with all the reaching you do in regards to our debates. It's like you don't really have anything to say so you just kind of throw 'whatever' out there and hope it sticks. Well, it doesn't. Ignoring the type of route a WR runs as it relates to the amount of time a QB has is simply ignorant. It's simple math. If WR A runs a route that takes 2 seconds to develop, WR B runs one in 1 second, and WR C runs one in 3 seconds, which of the two are options for a QB that has only 2 seconds? Math is hard. Look, I was just bringing in the other teams because you wanted to use them as examples of teams that clearly didn't go down field as often, and clearly threw the ball shorter, and clearly got rid of the ball quicker. It's not my fault the argument blew up in your face when I used the actual stats from the box scores you mentioned. Perhaps you should try looking at stats before pulling them out of your ass? Those teams mix it up, but the stats don't represent what you thought they did. But of course every time you bring something up, and I refute it with stats, you attempt to dismiss the stat without ever providing any hard data to support your position. Why don't you take your own advice and do some number crunching since the stats would be so obviously in favor of your argument. Also, since you're fond of personal attacks, I think you're an idiot if you actually simultaneously think that the Bears OL couldn't protect the QB, that the WRs were running longer/deeper routes, that every person interested in Chicago wanted Martz to design and run plays that took less time to execute, and the offense was still successful. You realize how contradictory and incomplete that is? I'm not saying the WRs didn't run the freaking routes. I'm saying the QBs didn't often have the time to look to those routes. The stats support that line of thought. The WR targets supports that reasoning. Take a minute to reason out what you're saying, because you clearly haven't done so... 1. The offense calls long developing plays 2. The WRs run long developing routes 3. The QBs spent more time in the pocket because they often threw to WRs who took longer to get open (because they clearly couldn't throw to the deeper routes while spending less time in the pocket) 4. The OL couldn't pass block for a long period of time, none could, because that's a flaw in the Martz offensive scheme 5. The offense was relatively successful with all of the above being true This is straight out of your mouth. If #4 is true, then 1-3 would not be true. Don't believe me? Since you're so fond of stats (but conveniently not fond of looking them up), check this out. Straight from NFL.com, it's a quick count during the 5 game win streak (because you mentioned when the offense was successful) of the number of times Cutler threw "short" or "deep," (NFL.com descriptors) without consideration for whether the pass was complete or incomplete, without worrying about if there was a penalty, according to the NFL.com descriptions (note: pass not included if NFL.com didn't include the adjective descriptors): MIN: Short 26, Deep 6 TB: Short 28, Deep 5 PHI: Short 28, Deep 7 DET: Short 14, Deep 7 SD: Short 23, Deep 8 I already know you're going to say, "of course the ratios look like that, they have to pass short to open up the deep passes." Of course I know this. But I'm just providing a statistic, yet again, that disproves the picture you're trying to paint (i.e. that the Bears often threw downfield). The great majority of the Bears' passing success was on short routes. Nonetheless, Cutler threw short approximately 78% of the time. That effectively negates the nonsense you're spewing about Martz's offense throwing the ball downfield while in Chicago. What you may be trying to say is, "Martz's offense is, by design, intended to go deep often." With this I agree. It's basically the philosophy he carried from the Greatest Show on Turf days: spread out the D, create one-on-one, protect the QB long enough to exploit the one-on-one, use a pass-catching RB to help create mistakes, take shots downfield. Problem is, the OL wasn't good enough to allow it to happen in Chicago, which essentially neutered the offensive possibilities. Would the numbers change if someone like VJax were on the team this past year? Perhaps, but unknowns are impossible to measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ignoring the type of route a WR runs as it relates to the amount of time a QB has is simply ignorant. It's simple math. If WR A runs a route that takes 2 seconds to develop, WR B runs one in 1 second, and WR C runs one in 3 seconds, which of the two are options for a QB that has only 2 seconds? I'm not ignoring anything. You think targets per game conveys which routes these guys run and how much time Cutler spends in the pocket, when it clearly doesn't. Yes I know that there are different routes that take longer to develop but Targets per game doesn't even come close to painting that picture. You can keep inferring that it does, and go ahead, but it's not conducive to the argument. And don't even begin to tell me I don't look up stats. Don't even start with that crap. See, when I use statistics to support my opinion, they actually mean something and actually have merit and purpose to the argument. Generally speaking, your statistics are usually ones that serve different purposes than what you are using them for. Although I will give you credit, atleast you are trying now. Look, I was just bringing in the other teams because you wanted to use them as examples of teams that clearly didn't go down field as often, and clearly threw the ball shorter, and clearly got rid of the ball quicker. It's not my fault the argument blew up in your face when I used the actual stats from the box scores you mentioned. What blew up in my face? You haven't presented anything that I haven't been able to debunk with logical reasoning. But then you always have a way of twisting different meanings of things to portray them the way you want them to be instead of just accepting that you have nothing else to say. Perhaps you should try looking at stats before pulling them out of your ass? Yeah. Since I do that. Right? Give me a break. If there is one person on this board that throws out more blanket statements, without backing any of it up, that person would be you. Here's a list that I compiled based on the yards/attempt from the 5 game winning streak, and then I compared it to the first 5 games of the season when the line was by far the worst in the league. Then I compared his yards/attempt with Caleb Haine's and Josh McCown's to show how much Jay Cutler affected the ability for us to run an offense. Also, I took 3 of the quarterbacks from the top 3 offenses in the NFL and compared their first 10 games of the season to Cutlers. In a way I actually was a bit surprised by how far ahead GB was over anyone else but then when you look at how efficient they were , it really puts it in perspective. You can't say that I'm cherry picking stats. Jay Cutler: 1st 5 games 5.88 yards/attempt 5 game winning streak 6.96 yard/attempt Cutler 10 games- 6.42 yards/attempt Last 6 games with Haine/Mcown- 3.65 yards/attempt **I had to lol at this.. how pathetic** If it weren't for the 8.6 yards/attempt McCown had in the GB game it would have been even worse! It shows you how Martz really had to dial it down once Jay went down. I'm glad I was able to stumble upon this statistic because it help clears up alot of misconceptions. While I was right about us throwing the ball down field more often post-Martz interogation it turns out that the Bears aren't as high as I anticipated in terms of throwing it downfield in comparison to other teams. But again, it's also possible that things would have averaged out better if Cutler would have finished out the season against some really terrible teams. Those first 5 games shows you how poorly that offense was run and once Martz got his shit together and ran a slightly more traditional offense, we started to take off a little bit more and the line was getting better. I'm curious to see how much better we would have been if Cutler had gotten to play the last 6 games of the season. Top 3 NFL offenses Drew Brees: 10 games- 7.28 yards/attempt Aaron Rodgers: 10 games- 8.57 yards/attempt Tom Brady: 10 games- 7.7 yards/attempt Randoms Joe Flacco: 10 games- 6.14 yards/attempt Matt Hasselbeck 10 games- 6.6 yards/attempt Alex Smith 10 games- 6.42 yards/attempt Matt Stafford 10 games- 6.74 yards/attempt Phillip Rivers 10 games- 7.14 yards/attempt Tony Romo 10 games- 7.47 yards/attempt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 I'm not ignoring anything. You think targets per game conveys which routes these guys run and how much time Cutler spends in the pocket, when it clearly doesn't. Yes I know that there are different routes that take longer to develop but Targets per game doesn't even come close to painting that picture. You can keep inferring that it does, and go ahead, but it's not conducive to the argument. And don't even begin to tell me I don't look up stats. Don't even start with that crap. See, when I use statistics to support my opinion, they actually mean something and actually have merit and purpose to the argument. Generally speaking, your statistics are usually ones that serve different purposes than what you are using them for. Although I will give you credit, atleast you are trying now. What blew up in my face? You haven't presented anything that I haven't been able to debunk with logical reasoning. But then you always have a way of twisting different meanings of things to portray them the way you want them to be instead of just accepting that you have nothing else to say. Yeah. Since I do that. Right? Give me a break. If there is one person on this board that throws out more blanket statements, without backing any of it up, that person would be you. Here's a list that I compiled based on the yards/attempt from the 5 game winning streak, and then I compared it to the first 5 games of the season when the line was by far the worst in the league. Then I compared his yards/attempt with Caleb Haine's and Josh McCown's to show how much Jay Cutler affected the ability for us to run an offense. Also, I took 3 of the quarterbacks from the top 3 offenses in the NFL and compared their first 10 games of the season to Cutlers. In a way I actually was a bit surprised by how far ahead GB was over anyone else but then when you look at how efficient they were , it really puts it in perspective. You can't say that I'm cherry picking stats. Jay Cutler: 1st 5 games 5.88 yards/attempt 5 game winning streak 6.96 yard/attempt Cutler 10 games- 6.42 yards/attempt Last 6 games with Haine/Mcown- 3.65 yards/attempt **I had to lol at this.. how pathetic** If it weren't for the 8.6 yards/attempt McCown had in the GB game it would have been even worse! It shows you how Martz really had to dial it down once Jay went down. I'm glad I was able to stumble upon this statistic because it help clears up alot of misconceptions. While I was right about us throwing the ball down field more often post-Martz interogation it turns out that the Bears aren't as high as I anticipated in terms of throwing it downfield in comparison to other teams. But again, it's also possible that things would have averaged out better if Cutler would have finished out the season against some really terrible teams. Those first 5 games shows you how poorly that offense was run and once Martz got his shit together and ran a slightly more traditional offense, we started to take off a little bit more and the line was getting better. I'm curious to see how much better we would have been if Cutler had gotten to play the last 6 games of the season. Top 3 NFL offenses Drew Brees: 10 games- 7.28 yards/attempt Aaron Rodgers: 10 games- 8.57 yards/attempt Tom Brady: 10 games- 7.7 yards/attempt Randoms Joe Flacco: 10 games- 6.14 yards/attempt Matt Hasselbeck 10 games- 6.6 yards/attempt Alex Smith 10 games- 6.42 yards/attempt Matt Stafford 10 games- 6.74 yards/attempt Phillip Rivers 10 games- 7.14 yards/attempt Tony Romo 10 games- 7.47 yards/attempt I'm completely disregarding anything with McCown and Hanie in it since that's been such a favorite tactic for anyone criticizing or evaluating this offense. But on to Cutler...at 6.42 yards per attempt he threw more consistently and more often downfield than the other teams like Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Stafford, Rivers, and Romo (notice I ignored the others that don't belong in this conversation)? You're saying this even though they all average more YPA? Are you saying there is so much YAC built in that the numbers are overly inflated for each team?? Unless you're saying it's all YAC, the data you present doesn't even support your argument. In fact, it refutes it. If Cutler has a lower YPA or YPC, then he threw shorter more often than the other teams/QBs you are mentioning. Unless of course you can find a YAC stat that shows otherwise, that shows the other teams are getting a ton of YAC while the Bears are getting very little. By the way, are you basing these stats on yards per attempt or yards per completion? They are two different things. If it's the former, where did you get the information? I'd be interesting in seeing it since that's exactly what I was looking for. But since I couldn't find it, and I suspect your stats are based on YPC and not YPA, why does it not surprise me that you completely ignored the following stats from my previous post? MIN: Short 26, Deep 6 TB: Short 28, Deep 5 PHI: Short 28, Deep 7 DET: Short 14, Deep 7 SD: Short 23, Deep 8 Those counts are straight from NFL.com play by play based upon the words "short" and "deep." No ambiguity, no bias. The stats say that you're wrong in regards to the "Cutler often threw downfield argument." What do you say to those numbers? Last but not least, I'm willing to put the "WR targets" issue to rest. It's an agree-to-disagree issue. I am convinced they are an indication, maybe not a complete picture, but at least an indication of the types of routes a WR runs when considering an OL under duress. Naturally if the QB has less time, he will have to look at the routes that take less time. Therefore, the player that runs shorter, quicker routes will likely get more targets than a player who runs more longer-developing routes. I honestly don't know why you disagree with this; it's a simple concept based on nothing more than simple math. In an ideal offense where the QB has more time, it may not hold true, but for a team like the Bears with a weak OL and weak WRs, I believe it to be an accurate indicator of which WRs are running shorter routes and at least getting the opportunity to be open before the QB is pressured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASHKUM BEAR Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Jerome Simpson would be a nice pickup. I'm not proposing the Bears only add him, they must get one of the big names above, but I'm of the belief they should sign 2 wideouts. Jerome Simpson just got indicted on drug charges today per ProFootballTalk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 I'm completely disregarding anything with McCown and Hanie in it since that's been such a favorite tactic for anyone criticizing or evaluating this offense. But on to Cutler...at 6.42 yards per attempt he threw more consistently and more often downfield than the other teams like Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Stafford, Rivers, and Romo (notice I ignored the others that don't belong in this conversation)? You're saying this even though they all average more YPA? Are you saying there is so much YAC built in that the numbers are overly inflated for each team?? Unless you're saying it's all YAC, the data you present doesn't even support your argument. In fact, it refutes it. If Cutler has a lower YPA or YPC, then he threw shorter more often than the other teams/QBs you are mentioning. Unless of course you can find a YAC stat that shows otherwise, that shows the other teams are getting a ton of YAC while the Bears are getting very little. By the way, are you basing these stats on yards per attempt or yards per completion? They are two different things. If it's the former, where did you get the information? I'd be interesting in seeing it since that's exactly what I was looking for. But since I couldn't find it, and I suspect your stats are based on YPC and not YPA, why does it not surprise me that you completely ignored the following stats from my previous post? MIN: Short 26, Deep 6 TB: Short 28, Deep 5 PHI: Short 28, Deep 7 DET: Short 14, Deep 7 SD: Short 23, Deep 8 Those counts are straight from NFL.com play by play based upon the words "short" and "deep." No ambiguity, no bias. The stats say that you're wrong in regards to the "Cutler often threw downfield argument." What do you say to those numbers? Last but not least, I'm willing to put the "WR targets" issue to rest. It's an agree-to-disagree issue. I am convinced they are an indication, maybe not a complete picture, but at least an indication of the types of routes a WR runs when considering an OL under duress. Naturally if the QB has less time, he will have to look at the routes that take less time. Therefore, the player that runs shorter, quicker routes will likely get more targets than a player who runs more longer-developing routes. I honestly don't know why you disagree with this; it's a simple concept based on nothing more than simple math. In an ideal offense where the QB has more time, it may not hold true, but for a team like the Bears with a weak OL and weak WRs, I believe it to be an accurate indicator of which WRs are running shorter routes and at least getting the opportunity to be open before the QB is pressured. It was yards/attempt. I overlooked it before when I was going through the box scores originally but then I came back to it. Check it out on one of the games I was looking at. Scroll down and you'll find it under the passing. http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/boxscor...&final=true Technically I wasn't wrong about anything I said. I was basing this off what you said about how we won those 5 games despite not throwing down field more often. His 2nd five games in comparison to his first 5 shows you that they were throwing it down field more, otherwise his yards/attempt would have remain unaffected. The other group of guys I put together randomly, not knowing what I was going to find out. Since I found this to be a pretty reliable statistic I wanted to see how everything turned out and as I mentioned in my previous post, most of those guys I had on their actually threw for more yards/attempt than Cutler did based on the first 10 games of the season which I found kind of surprising, to a degree. But I also think it's fair to say, Jays yards/attempt could have continued to go upward had he been able to play out the rest of the season against some very very bad teams. The only way I think you could accurately target the amount of routes being run is to do an actual film study of each and every game from every team in the NFL to compare it to the Bears. And unless there is a stat I don't know about, I don't think I'll be doing that.. As for your other stat, I think when you simply compare "Short" and "Deep" it doesn't represent what my argument was because when I say "down field" that includes the intermediate routes as well. I didn't restrict my argument to just throwing 40 yard bombs every play. That's not realistic. I think yards/attempt better conveys this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 It was yards/attempt. I overlooked it before when I was going through the box scores originally but then I came back to it. Check it out on one of the games I was looking at. Scroll down and you'll find it under the passing. http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/boxscor...&final=true Technically I wasn't wrong about anything I said. I was basing this off what you said about how we won those 5 games despite not throwing down field more often. His 2nd five games in comparison to his first 5 shows you that they were throwing it down field more, otherwise his yards/attempt would have remain unaffected. The other group of guys I put together randomly, not knowing what I was going to find out. Since I found this to be a pretty reliable statistic I wanted to see how everything turned out and as I mentioned in my previous post, most of those guys I had on their actually threw for more yards/attempt than Cutler did based on the first 10 games of the season which I found kind of surprising, to a degree. But I also think it's fair to say, Jays yards/attempt could have continued to go upward had he been able to play out the rest of the season against some very very bad teams. The only way I think you could accurately target the amount of routes being run is to do an actual film study of each and every game from every team in the NFL to compare it to the Bears. And unless there is a stat I don't know about, I don't think I'll be doing that.. As for your other stat, I think when you simply compare "Short" and "Deep" it doesn't represent what my argument was because when I say "down field" that includes the intermediate routes as well. I didn't restrict my argument to just throwing 40 yard bombs every play. That's not realistic. I think yards/attempt better conveys this. See, NOW we're getting somewhere. The stats are interesting because nobody else has the YPA that I've seen. I wonder how reliable it is. It would be interesting to chart one game and see how close they are and what they constitute as the cutoff mark. This all started with which position is more important to the Bears' offensive success: OL or WR. (forgive the colors, otherwise it's hard to follow) 1. I started with, "Cutler and Co. were getting into a groove despite the fact that they were severely limited on the number of effective pass routes available. The reason there was a limit was the OL's inability to hold a block for more than 2 seconds consistently." Notice I focused on the routes that were available. 2. You changed the argument to how many routes they ran, and not how effective they were, by saying, "The Bears probably ran as many, if not more deep patterns during the season with Cutler than just about any team in the NFL." 3. I countered with, "Cutler did not have the time to consistently look for the WRs who were running longer-developing routes." 4. You countered with, "Most of his passes were down the field because, as I've been saying, that's how Martz's offense works." 5. Since I didn't have YPA I looked at WR targets as an indicator (which it is), and said, "Knox typically runs longer routes, which is why he has less targets." 6. You ignored targets because they weren't YPA and said, "TPG really have nothing to do with what you are trying to make out." even though now it appears to be an indicator of YPA. 7. And followed it with, "I wish I did have the numbers for Yards per attempt from Cutler because that would put an end to this discussion." 8. To appease you I gave you the short/deep stats from NFL.com. "Cutler threw "short" or "deep,"...according to the NFL.com descriptions" 9. You found YPA (thanks) and discovered all along that Cutler does not throw to deep patterns as often as the other good offenses in the NFL, and only beat the ultra-conservative offenses like the Ravens from your admittedly minimal sample size. 10. You finally replied to short/deep with "I think when you simply compare "Short" and "Deep" it doesn't represent what my argument was because when I say "down field" that includes the intermediate routes as well.", even though it now appears to be an indicator of YPA. In summary: -You and I misunderstood each other initial in regards to "# of deeper routes the Bears ran" and "# of deeper routes the Bears had the ability to throw to." Clearly I was referencing the latter, because it's the only one of the two that has significance in relation to how the OL protects. Judging from your very last post (i.e. "The only way I think you could accurately target the amount of routes being run ...") you still don't seem to grasp the difference. -WR Targets appear to be an indirect indicator of YPA, but we agree an entire game would have to be meticulously broken down to see which routes were run, whether the WR was open, and whether the QB had time to throw to the WR. -Short/Deep from NFL.com appears to be an indirect indicator of YPA, but we agree that the verbiage is a bit vague when compared to YPA. -You were wrong in your assessment of YPA overall (i.e. #4, #7, #9), despite being technically right about an upswing in YPA and better OL play during the streak, and YPA directly correlates to the number of deeper routes available (see top bullet). So, back to square one, OL vs. WR, since the Bears YPA is still lower than most offenses (an admitted assumption based on your YPA stats), that appears to indicate 1 of 2 things: 1. Cutler does not consistently have the time to throw to the WRs running longer routes. 2. The WRs running longer routes are not consistently open as often as those running shorter routes. Anyone who has played WR or DB (I have played both) can tell you that #2 just doesn't make sense. Give me more time as a WR, and I'm more likely to get open. Conversely, make me guard a WR for more time, and I'm more likely to get beat. And while reality is probably a mix of #1 and #2, that ultimately leaves us more of #1. Which is why OL is more important than WR for the Bears, and why they should draft a LT all things being equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted January 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Kalil is a better pro prospect than Blackmon, and more worth trading up for. A guy who can protect your QB CONSISTENTLY for 10 years is a better prospect than a guy who can catch passes from his QB. How's that for a settlement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 See, NOW we're getting somewhere. The stats are interesting because nobody else has the YPA that I've seen. I wonder how reliable it is. It would be interesting to chart one game and see how close they are and what they constitute as the cutoff mark. This all started with which position is more important to the Bears' offensive success: OL or WR. (forgive the colors, otherwise it's hard to follow) 1. I started with, "Cutler and Co. were getting into a groove despite the fact that they were severely limited on the number of effective pass routes available. The reason there was a limit was the OL's inability to hold a block for more than 2 seconds consistently." Notice I focused on the routes that were available. 2. You changed the argument to how many routes they ran, and not how effective they were, by saying, "The Bears probably ran as many, if not more deep patterns during the season with Cutler than just about any team in the NFL." 3. I countered with, "Cutler did not have the time to consistently look for the WRs who were running longer-developing routes." 4. You countered with, "Most of his passes were down the field because, as I've been saying, that's how Martz's offense works." 5. Since I didn't have YPA I looked at WR targets as an indicator (which it is), and said, "Knox typically runs longer routes, which is why he has less targets." 6. You ignored targets because they weren't YPA and said, "TPG really have nothing to do with what you are trying to make out." even though now it appears to be an indicator of YPA. 7. And followed it with, "I wish I did have the numbers for Yards per attempt from Cutler because that would put an end to this discussion." 8. To appease you I gave you the short/deep stats from NFL.com. "Cutler threw "short" or "deep,"...according to the NFL.com descriptions" 9. You found YPA (thanks) and discovered all along that Cutler does not throw to deep patterns as often as the other good offenses in the NFL, and only beat the ultra-conservative offenses like the Ravens from your admittedly minimal sample size. 10. You finally replied to short/deep with "I think when you simply compare "Short" and "Deep" it doesn't represent what my argument was because when I say "down field" that includes the intermediate routes as well.", even though it now appears to be an indicator of YPA. In summary: -You and I misunderstood each other initial in regards to "# of deeper routes the Bears ran" and "# of deeper routes the Bears had the ability to throw to." Clearly I was referencing the latter, because it's the only one of the two that has significance in relation to how the OL protects. Judging from your very last post (i.e. "The only way I think you could accurately target the amount of routes being run ...") you still don't seem to grasp the difference. -WR Targets appear to be an indirect indicator of YPA, but we agree an entire game would have to be meticulously broken down to see which routes were run, whether the WR was open, and whether the QB had time to throw to the WR. -Short/Deep from NFL.com appears to be an indirect indicator of YPA, but we agree that the verbiage is a bit vague when compared to YPA. -You were wrong in your assessment of YPA overall (i.e. #4, #7, #9), despite being technically right about an upswing in YPA and better OL play during the streak, and YPA directly correlates to the number of deeper routes available (see top bullet). So, back to square one, OL vs. WR, since the Bears YPA is still lower than most offenses (an admitted assumption based on your YPA stats), that appears to indicate 1 of 2 things: 1. Cutler does not consistently have the time to throw to the WRs running longer routes. 2. The WRs running longer routes are not consistently open as often as those running shorter routes. Anyone who has played WR or DB (I have played both) can tell you that #2 just doesn't make sense. Give me more time as a WR, and I'm more likely to get open. Conversely, make me guard a WR for more time, and I'm more likely to get beat. And while reality is probably a mix of #1 and #2, that ultimately leaves us more of #1. Which is why OL is more important than WR for the Bears, and why they should draft a LT all things being equal. My comment about Martz and his deep patterns is probably less true than what I was lead on to believe initially just based off the yards/attempt statistic that I compiled. It cleared up some misconceptions I had previously, but then again there really isn't a true way of knowing "routes wise" unless you would do a film study to watch for it because a QB can throw a short pass even when there are two other guys running 15 yards down field. Martz is known for his aggressive play calling style in how he attacks defenses with the limitless passing concepts he has created in the 10,000 pages in his playbook. It was the density and complexity of the playbook that kept the Bears from signing anybody other than Josh McCown when Cutler went down. That is why I suspected that they probably ran as many as any team in the league. His reputation indicated that this would be true, and I didn't see anything during games that would have lead me to believe otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Kalil is a better pro prospect than Blackmon, and more worth trading up for. A guy who can protect your QB CONSISTENTLY for 10 years is a better prospect than a guy who can catch passes from his QB. How's that for a settlement? I don't agree with the second part about which is better, but I'll give you that if you're trading up, all things considered, Kalil would be more worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Kalil is a better pro prospect than Blackmon, and more worth trading up for. A guy who can protect your QB CONSISTENTLY for 10 years is a better prospect than a guy who can catch passes from his QB. How's that for a settlement? HA! An arbitrator. I agree completely with you, but it appears that there is still disagreement...which has me shaking my head in disbelief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.