Watched the game replay and now am seriously worried

The Radish

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
18,469
Reaction score
3
Location
Spokane, Wa.
As glad as I am to have won I have to say it looked to me as if the only reason we won the game is because of a coin toss.

Our defense only gave up 17 points but it seemed to not be their fault, more like Chi-Town's own ineptitude. One sure TD dropped and Browner not within 5 yards of the guy on a missed assignments.

But the biggest thing to me is watching our running defensive whom earlier in the season could stop anyone anytime. Our defense is being out worked, out classed, or out coached, not sure which.

Oh yes they did come up with some great plays. But you have to admit they came up with some real stinkers!

And the last Chi-Town scoring play how could their best receiver who had been beating the crap out of us all game be left pretty much unattended? How damned embarassing! Why didn't someone chuck him at the los to screw up the play timing? In fact we seem to have backed off that now after it being so successful earlier in the season.

Am I being picky? Probably but is it to much to expect to want the defensive line we had in the early games, along with the offense we now have? That would be killer. If they continue with this kind of play we won't be killer, we'll be road kill.

:roll:
 

NYCoug

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
1
The Radish":2ryhkhhs said:
As glad as I am to have won I have to say it looked to me as if the only reason we won the game is because of a coin toss.

Our defense only gave up 17 points but it seemed to not be their fault, more like Chi-Town's own ineptitude. One sure TD dropped and Browner not within 5 yards of the guy on a missed assignments.

But the biggest thing to me is watching our running defensive whom earlier in the season could stop anyone anytime. Our defense is being out worked, out classed, or out coached, not sure which.

Oh yes they did come up with some great plays. But you have to admit they came up with some real stinkers!

And the last Chi-Town scoring play how could their best receiver who had been beating the crap out of us all game be left pretty much unattended? How damned embarassing! Why didn't someone chuck him at the los to screw up the play timing? In fact we seem to have backed off that now after it being so successful earlier in the season.

Am I being picky? Probably but is it to much to expect to want the defensive line we had in the early games, along with the offense we now have? That would be killer. If they continue with this kind of play we won't be killer, we'll be road kill.

:roll:

It's not too much to ask for Radish. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for that since that's what it's going to require in order to make the playoffs and win a Super Bowl, which I still hold hope for this season.

You're absolutely right about the coverage on Marshall on the last play. He's not the easiest guy to jam at the LOS so maybe that's why they backed away from it on this play but if that was the case the coverage on him downfield should have been tighter. I agree that the team has seemed to back away from more press coverage and appear to be dropping into more zones. I don't know if that's to combat the dip in the run defense, since it's tougher to disengage from press coverage to try and support the run than zone, but there's definitely been a noticeable difference. I try not to heap too much crap towards playcalling but Bradley and Carroll have left me puzzled quite a bit as the season has progressed. I'll leave it at that.

I think this win will be a huge boost and we'll see a great effort in front of the fans on Sunday. However, I can see why there'd be cause for concern. Browner definitely got away with 1 on Sunday! Phew!
 

AF_Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
52
That Marshall catch at the end of the 4th qtr pissed me off. Replay shows Sherman tried to catch the ball instead of batting it down. Hopefully he got an earful on that.
 

twelfman

New member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
499
Reaction score
0
Its called zone defense
We leave some big spaces for recievers in it
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
We really have never played zone very well for so many years I can't believe we even use it at all. A real head scratcher.
 

hawker84

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
318
Location
Tri Cities, WA
that last play sucked, no doubt.. but the fact is we had players in the right positions to make a play on the ball... why sherman decided to go for the pick instead of batting it down, don't know, probably just instinct... hopefully he learned a valuable lesson.. but Marshall is that type of reciever that makes those kind of plays.. got to give him credit for coming back to the ball and going up and getting it...

but yes Radish, still cause for concern in other positions as well, they looked a little better sunday. where is the d from the first part of the season? i have seen nothing even remotely close.. very strange to me. they have got to step it up, figure it out, try something new, whatever.. cuz this type of play, will not win playoff road games.
 

hawksfansinceday1

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
24,629
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
hawker84":2ccuzwz7 said:
...........where is the d from the first part of the season? i have seen nothing even remotely close.. very strange to me. they have got to step it up, figure it out, try something new, whatever.. cuz this type of play, will not win playoff road games.
This. Good post 84.
 

HawkWow

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
6,740
Reaction score
0
Location
The 5-0
The Radish":17yb0uz8 said:
As glad as I am to have won I have to say it looked to me as if the only reason we won the game is because of a coin toss.

Our defense only gave up 17 points but it seemed to not be their fault, more like Chi-Town's own ineptitude. One sure TD dropped and Browner not within 5 yards of the guy on a missed assignments.

But the biggest thing to me is watching our running defensive whom earlier in the season could stop anyone anytime. Our defense is being out worked, out classed, or out coached, not sure which.

Oh yes they did come up with some great plays. But you have to admit they came up with some real stinkers!

And the last Chi-Town scoring play how could their best receiver who had been beating the crap out of us all game be left pretty much unattended? How damned embarassing! Why didn't someone chuck him at the los to screw up the play timing? In fact we seem to have backed off that now after it being so successful earlier in the season.

Am I being picky? Probably but is it to much to expect to want the defensive line we had in the early games, along with the offense we now have? That would be killer. If they continue with this kind of play we won't be killer, we'll be road kill.

:roll:


Not picky...astute. Add your comments here to the melt down at Miami and there is definite reason for pause. I think this young team read too much of it's own press earlier in the season. In the bigger picture, it might have been better had Miami beat us by 35. Sometimes the best medicine for primadonna-ism is an old fashioned ass-whuppin.
 

FlyingGreg

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Not picky it all - there is genuine cause for concern. This is the true importance of pulling your head out of the piles of stats and feel-good rankings and just WATCHING and seeing what happens during a game. Making plays when we need it is ALL that matters. Our 2005 defense wasn't ranked high statistically, but they came up with clutch turnovers and defensive TDs, clutch sacks, and were tough to score on in the red zone. Those are the traits I want from our defense.

I was terrified to lose that coin toss in OT, because I had no doubt Chicago would have moved down the field at will.

It's amazing to me that throughout the season, the strength of this team has inverted from the defense to the offense.
 

Snake Plisskin

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Location
Clark County, WA
AF_Hawk":3ccpvt7q said:
That Marshall catch at the end of the 4th qtr pissed me off. Replay shows Sherman tried to catch the ball instead of batting it down. Hopefully he got an earful on that.

I know Pete said in the presser he would have rather Sherman knock the ball down instead of go for it, but I don't understand this line of thinking. It was 1st and 10 for the Bears at that time, about 15 seconds on the clock. If Sherman picks it off, game over. If he knocks it down, Cutler and Marshall get at least 2 more shots. What am I missing?
 

MidwestHawker

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,046
Reaction score
0
Location
Indianapolis
Mandu":30jtebrk said:
AF_Hawk":30jtebrk said:
That Marshall catch at the end of the 4th qtr pissed me off. Replay shows Sherman tried to catch the ball instead of batting it down. Hopefully he got an earful on that.

I know Pete said in the presser he would have rather Sherman knock the ball down instead of go for it, but I don't understand this line of thinking. It was 1st and 10 for the Bears at that time, about 15 seconds on the clock. If Sherman picks it off, game over. If he knocks it down, Cutler and Marshall get at least 2 more shots. What am I missing?

The Bears were in a position where their only chance of success was a long completion that also allowed them to get out of bounds. That or a long pass interference call. You don't gamble on that; you protect the sidelines at all costs, leave the middle of the field for the Bears (who had no timeouts to grab a chunk of yards if they like, and win the game that way.
 

hawker84

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
318
Location
Tri Cities, WA
you normally want to bat the ball down in that situation.. yes it leaves time on the clock, but time for what? 1 ior 2 more plays just like that... pick would've sealed , so would a knockdown, and that's easier to do.
 

Missing_Clink

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
1
I just don't understand why the pass rush is so ineffective. It has pretty much completely disappeared. Even Clemons
 

AbsolutNET

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
8,974
Reaction score
1
Location
PNW
Mandu":6qa19b72 said:
AF_Hawk":6qa19b72 said:
That Marshall catch at the end of the 4th qtr pissed me off. Replay shows Sherman tried to catch the ball instead of batting it down. Hopefully he got an earful on that.

I know Pete said in the presser he would have rather Sherman knock the ball down instead of go for it, but I don't understand this line of thinking. It was 1st and 10 for the Bears at that time, about 15 seconds on the clock. If Sherman picks it off, game over. If he knocks it down, Cutler and Marshall get at least 2 more shots. What am I missing?

You saw what happened when he tried to pick it, right? That's why DB's aren't receivers. Knocking it down is considerably easier and more effective than trying to catch it.
 

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
2,645
Location
Anchorage, AK
Another thing that Pete said in his presser, is that they were playing the proper defense on the play, but when Cutler broke out of the pocket, it seemed for a moment that he was about to run. He said this seemed to pull the DB's out of position just enough to leave Marshall in a good position for the ball.
 

volsunghawk

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
0
Location
Right outside Richard Sherman's house
FlyingGreg":3j6jdrlc said:
Not picky it all - there is genuine cause for concern. This is the true importance of pulling your head out of the piles of stats and feel-good rankings and just WATCHING and seeing what happens during a game. Making plays when we need it is ALL that matters. Our 2005 defense wasn't ranked high statistically, but they came up with clutch turnovers and defensive TDs, clutch sacks, and were tough to score on in the red zone. Those are the traits I want from our defense.

I was terrified to lose that coin toss in OT, because I had no doubt Chicago would have moved down the field at will.

It's amazing to me that throughout the season, the strength of this team has inverted from the defense to the offense.

That 2005 defense also benefited from a very high scoring offense that forced opposing offenses to become one-dimensional, making the defense's job easier.

I don't know that we're going to see that kind of offense here, so our defense is going to have to improve.

It should be noted that this same defense also got a key 4th down stop in the red zone against Chicago, and held Matt Forte in check for the most part. And while I understand the frustration of watching Cutler and Marshall play pitch-and-catch, that shouldn't be cause for panic. Those two have had amazing chemistry since they came into the league, and they make each other better. Covering Marshall all day was impossible... the blame for that can go squarely on the lack of pass rush, because Cutler had plenty of time all day to improvise and find Marshall.

I don't know what it will take, but I'm starting to think we need to revamp our D-line philosophy.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.
 

hawksfansinceday1

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
24,629
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
Uncle Si":23xz39gv said:
We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.
All very good points. The concern for me is the late game problems/"letdowns" that have lead to wins by Az., Mia., Det. and a tie by Chi. It has seemed like when they are most needed, the D has let the team down. Being home for 3 of the next 4 should help a lot.
 

FlyingGreg

Active member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
9,515
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
hawksfansinceday1":25lpey7u said:
Uncle Si":25lpey7u said:
We gave up a TD on a short drive spurred by a fumble recovery on the first drive, and a late (last second) FG that was set up by a poor pass rush, broken coverage and a bad play by one of our DBs. In between we gave up one TD, stopped the Bears on 4th and 1 which is now the single most important play the D made all day.

17 points on the road to an 8-3 team. Seems good to me. Not great, but good. Given the circumstances behind 10 of the 17 points the time betwen the defense played well. Again, not great. No QB sacks, little pressure and Marshall caught 150 yards worth. But 17 points, and only 7 in the 50 minutes between the first and last scores

Point is, we are not the defense of the first 6 weeks. But Wilson is not the same QB either. We are also not the same D on the road. I was really excited that despite the Marshall play we held them to 17 points given that it looked like we could be down two scores early.
All very good points. The concern for me is the late game problems/"letdowns" that have lead to wins by Az., Mia., Det. and a tie by Chi. It has seemed like when they are most needed, the D has let the team down. Being home for 3 of the next 4 should help a lot.

That's exactly the problem - they are breaking down at the worst possible time. Overall, a good defense. Late in the game - they are scary and not in a good way.

A defense faltering at the end of the games is not a good thing.
 

jlwaters1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
2,986
Reaction score
86
The Radish":1q8ffc1d said:
As glad as I am to have won I have to say it looked to me as if the only reason we won the game is because of a coin toss.

Our defense only gave up 17 points but it seemed to not be their fault, more like Chi-Town's own ineptitude. One sure TD dropped and Browner not within 5 yards of the guy on a missed assignments.
But the biggest thing to me is watching our running defensive whom earlier in the season could stop anyone anytime. Our defense is being out worked, out classed, or out coached, not sure which.

Oh yes they did come up with some great plays. But you have to admit they came up with some real stinkers!

And the last Chi-Town scoring play how could their best receiver who had been beating the crap out of us all game be left pretty much unattended? How damned embarassing! Why didn't someone chuck him at the los to screw up the play timing? In fact we seem to have backed off that now after it being so successful earlier in the season.

Am I being picky? Probably but is it to much to expect to want the defensive line we had in the early games, along with the offense we now have? That would be killer. If they continue with this kind of play we won't be killer, we'll be road kill.

:roll:

I'm sorry but your completely wrong on the 2 highlighted items. A) Coverage wasn't blown on that dropped TD. Browner had him the whole way. He just got caught looking at the QB and lost track of his man. Yes it was his fault but it wasn't a "blown" coverage. B) Marshall wasn't left unattended. Sherman was coming over to try to intercept or break up the pass. He misjudged his jump carried him past (behind) Marshall aggressively came back towards the ball. Great play by him. Both players made mistakes that is all.

I'm actually encouraged by the defense. Why? Because they didn't play particularly well and only allowed 17 points after holding them to 14 points for 59 minutes of regulation. You must also factor in that there 2nd TD only came after 2 dubious personal foul calls. If it weren't for the first of those it would have been a 3 and out situation.
 

Latest posts

Top