Week One - Bears vs Packers.

[malak1]

Cody Whitehair either needs to learn how to snap the ball TODAY, or he can gtfo.

[Nads786]

21 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

I just wish the Bears would stop fighting themselves when it comes to personnel decision. Put the best team on the field personnel wise and stop playing guys who are not better than other guys.

-Bullard does nothing, yet he plays as many snaps as RRH who has multiple big plays.

-I do not care where Roquan is at in his development, Nick K was getting torched all game long, get him on the sideline and play the better player.

-Whitehair snapping the ball is an issue, solve it and move him to LG.

-Dion Sims is bad at football and was a garbage signing, get him off the field and off the team.

 

Def agree with this. Roquan needs to play his speed would have really helped. Sims is complete garbage and whitehair continues to have snapping problems. 

[topwop1]

8 minutes ago, malak1 said:

Cody Whitehair either needs to learn how to snap the ball TODAY, or he can gtfo.

I really don't get why they don't put Daniels in there at C and push Whitehair to G over Kush.

Is Kush really that much better than both of these guys?  Let Daniels play his natural position man.

[yomyyo]

3 hours ago, IronMike84 said:

No it’s not sarcasm. Unless Rodgers has an unplayable injury, he’ll just always win. 

Sadly, this seems to be true for the Bears; their relationship with AR and GB has developed in a complex that could occupy dozens of psych PhD candidates. I was hoping that new coaches / personnel would ameliorate the team's sickness, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I imagine that we'll see a far better performance from the Bears next week.  

Granted, the Bears have been terrible for the past few years, but even during their more successful Lovie years they couldn't beat GB. One might think that GB has won the past 15 Superbowls, but they haven't; other teams are entirely capable of beating AR. Super depressing.

[gizmo2012]

2 hours ago, Nads786 said:

Yep it's true, we're all just too shell-shocked to absorb it. The reality is nobody here said we would beat GB and nobody here said we would be up by 17 points. Everyone here is more or less mad we couldn't close the game, a game nobody thought we would be in. 

It's going to be a long season, lets see how it unfolds for these Bears. This team can absolutely win 8 games this year--> that is progress!

(from a Packers fan) The Bears looked like a very good football team. A legend beat you this time. It happens but don't lose faith - this will be a team to be reckoned with this year. 

[WindyCity]

They have till the bye week to get the dumbass stuff out of their system.

[Epyon]

4 hours ago, WindyCity said:

Taylor Gabriel averaged 5 YPC and I did not see him go deep once. What is the point of having a 4.2 [40] WR that you talked about adding speed and not even sending him deep and threatening the defense?

Hoge and Jahns podcast mentioned something about Taylor worth bringing back up here.... He finished 5Rec 25 yards.... but he had 1 reception for 31 yards. Meaning he managed to lose 6 yards of production within the remaining 4 receptions.

Screen game blocking on the edge wasn't really there and/or he simply wasn't beating his man.

Massive disappointment with the passing attack in general after we ran out of scripted plays, tbh... very little downfield.... almost no TE presence despite their MLB's basically being Kwiatoskis in coverage.

Even the running game, honestly didn't look that great. Most of the big plays where made on a major cutback as opposed to where the play was designed to be run.

 

Defensively, the playcalling was honestly even more unforgivably timid in the 2nd half than the offense. Why in gods name are the corners playing 15 yards off on 3rd and 2, when Rodgers has one leg and is terrified of holding the ball longer than 2 seconds? Super frustrating game all around because the flashes of greatness where certainly there in the first half. Team looked like the Bear from The Revenant early on, and Winnie the Pooh in the end.

My favorite sports quote is in reference to the 1969 Ohio State vs Michigan game. Ohio State trounced Michigan 50–14, including going for two after their last touchdown in the game's final moments. When asked why he did so after the game, Hayes replied, "Because I couldn't go for three!"

That's the mentality I want from a bears coach again.... up 20-0 the mentality should have been "let's get 40+-0" in the second half, not "let's stall the game out"...... After our defense thrashed them in the first half, the mentality should have been "Good, do it again" not "ok, guys let's play prevent defense for a half and hope one of the best QB's in history doesn't pick us apart like he does...every. single. flipping. time. we play like beta males".

[Epyon]

1 hour ago, gizmo2012 said:

(from a Packers fan) The Bears looked like a very good football team. A legend beat you this time. It happens but don't lose faith - this will be a team to be reckoned with this year. 

Honestly, Rodgers played well, but he didn't beat us... We beat ourselves, inexplicably playing like beta males in the 2nd half despite over a decade's worth of evidence that playing like a beta male against A-Rod simply doesn't work. 4 different Head Coaches and none of them can seemingly figure out that you simply cannot ever take your foot off the gas vs one of the best QBs of all time and that there's a difference between "playing to win" and "playing to not lose"... Let's hope this HC takes this experience and finally learns the lesson that the latter of those isn't going to cut it, until A-Rod is retired.

[Coffee & Contemplation]

I wouldn't say the Bears beat themselves, and I hate that phrase as I feel it diminishes the accomplishments of others. I think it has its place, but more in regards to teams that make large amounts of unforced errors. Some errors made by the Bears were unforced, but most were not. They simply got badly outplayed on offense and defense in the second half. The Packers made huge adjustments to account for their problems in the first half and the Bears didn't. The Packers went to quick passes and short routes to account for the pass rush they struggled with. And they adjusted to man coverage on defense. The Bears didn't have a good answer to either. 

With that said, I think all Bears fans should be optimistic, despite the crushing way the loss happened. It's one game, and it's still early. The defense looks like it will be a top-10 (maybe Top-5) unit, as most QBs can't do anything close to what Rodgers can; the front seven looks terrifying and that will help mask some relative weaknesses in the secondary. The running game looks more than admirable. The inventive use of formations will be a benefit as long as they don't develop any identifiable tells.

Trubisky is the key, and he will likely improve. We don't know how much he'll improve, but he almost certainly will to some degree. He may not get where you need him to be this year but he's got enough talent that he's an investment worth making. If he hasn't noticeably improved by the end of next year then I think you start asking the serious question of replacement, but until then you just have to be patient and wait and see. If fans demand too much too soon then it could cause him to fail under that added pressure and then you just shoot yourself in the foot because he could go elsewhere and flourish (a la Alex Smith and others). You have to remember how young and inexperienced he is, and how long some QBs take to reach the point that they flourish. You get a couple of guys who can jump in as rookies and take off from there, but most need more time to adjust, and I think it's too early to start saying anything definitively on Trubs. 

I'm a Packers fan who didn't pay attention to much football last year after the Rodgers injury broke my will to watch, along with my busy schedule that kept me occupied. So the Bears team I saw last night was completely unrecognizable to me considering my last vivid memories of the team. Y'all are way better positioned (short and long term) than you've been since the early Lovie years. 

[RJ_11]

5 minutes ago, Coffee & Contemplation said:

I wouldn't say the Bears beat themselves, and I hate that phrase as I feel it diminishes the accomplishments of others. I think it has its place, but more in regards to teams that make large amounts of unforced errors. Some errors made by the Bears were unforced, but most were not. They simply got badly outplayed on offense and defense in the second half. The Packers made huge adjustments to account for their problems in the first half and the Bears didn't. The Packers went to quick passes and short routes to account for the pass rush they struggled with. And they adjusted to man coverage on defense. The Bears didn't have a good answer to either. 

With that said, I think all Bears fans should be optimistic, despite the crushing way the loss happened. It's one game, and it's still early. The defense looks like it will be a top-10 (maybe Top-5) unit, as most QBs can't do anything close to what Rodgers can; the front seven looks terrifying and that will help mask some relative weaknesses in the secondary. The running game looks more than admirable. The inventive use of formations will be a benefit as long as they don't develop any identifiable tells.

Trubisky is the key, and he will likely improve. We don't know how much he'll improve, but he almost certainly will to some degree. He may not get where you need him to be this year but he's got enough talent that he's an investment worth making. If he hasn't noticeably improved by the end of next year then I think you start asking the serious question of replacement, but until then you just have to be patient and wait and see. If fans demand too much too soon then it could cause him to fail under that added pressure and then you just shoot yourself in the foot because he could go elsewhere and flourish (a la Alex Smith and others). You have to remember how young and inexperienced he is, and how long some QBs take to reach the point that they flourish. You get a couple of guys who can jump in as rookies and take off from there, but most need more time to adjust, and I think it's too early to start saying anything definitively on Trubs. 

I'm a Packers fan who didn't pay attention to much football last year after the Rodgers injury broke my will to watch, along with my busy schedule that kept me occupied. So the Bears team I saw last night was completely unrecognizable to me considering my last vivid memories of the team. Y'all are way better positioned (short and long term) than you've been since the early Lovie years. 

The most sensible post on here in the last 24 hours has come from a Packers fan

R-E-L-A-X. That was a crushing defeat and one that is always gonna be hard to take. But would you rather have that performance or the one at Lambeau last season? We've come a looooonnnnng way in just one off-season. This team is young in more ways than just the roster - Nagy is new to this and still new to the playcalling game (don't get me started on the wheel route to Cohen on 3rd & 1 at the end) but they will get better. The team clearly has a lot of talent, that first half was unbelievable, I cannot wait to watch this defense for another 15 games this season. Everyone in the organization is going to be hurting bad from this loss, we'll come out next week, eat that Seahawks O-line for breakfast and be 1-1. I'm still excited about this team. Bear TF Down.

[JAF-N72EX]

8 hours ago, topwop1 said:

I really don't get why they don't put Daniels in there at C and push Whitehair to G over Kush.

Is Kush really that much better than both of these guys?  Let Daniels play his natural position man.

I think right now Kush is getting the nod because of his experience. I don't think he's bad at all. In fact, I think he's a perfect placeholder while Daniels get used to the speed of the game, the plaubook, signals, etc. IMO.  

I've been saying all along that Whitehair has all of the physical tools to be one of the better centers in the league but mentally he just don't have it - way too many mental lapses. I was hoping that last year was just an anomaly and Heistand and he would fix these issues. But that's now two games (including preseason) where that's obviously not the case.

Aside from the two bad snaps he had in this game (one of which Trubisky saved from going over his head) he's also the reason why Howard failed to get a 1st down on a 3rd and 1 run in the 2nd quarter - Whitehair just let Clark toss him to the side and make a play.

Which by the way, for everyone wondering why Nagy didn't go for it on 3rd down late in the game....this may have been the reason. Not saying I support the call, just saying that it's a possibility.

 

 

[JAF-N72EX]

7 for 17(41.2%) on 3rd down attempts - Good for 9th in the league last year. We finished 26th in the league last year (34.6%). 
Nagy: Total Avg distance to go = 5.5 yards
Nagy: Play selection on 3rd down  = 4 Rushes | 13 Passes 

3/4 (75%) | Avg distance  = 2.8 yards
1st Q - 3rd and 2 - Run - Success
1st Q - 3rd and 2 - Pass - Success
1st Q - 3rd and 4 - Pass - Success
1st Q - 3rd and 3 - Pass - Failed

0-3 (0%) | Avg distance = 6.3 yards
2nd Q - 3rd and 1 - Run - Failed
2nd Q - 3rd and 13- Pass - Failed
2nd Q - 3rd and 5 - Pass - Failed

1-2(33%) | Avg distance = 9.6 yards
3rd Q - 3rd and 9 - Pass - Success
3rd Q - 3rd and 9 - Pass - Failed
3rd Q - 3rd and 11- Pass - Failed

3-7(43%) | Avg distance = 4.9 yards
4th Q - 3rd and 1 - Pass - Failed
4th Q - 3rd and 3 - Run - Success
4th Q - 3rd and 2 - Run - Success
4th Q - 3rd and 7 - Pass - Success
4th Q - 3rd and 2 - Pass - Failed
4th Q - 3rd and 9 - Pass - Failed
4th Q - 3rd and 10 - Pass - Failed
=================================

(2017 week 10 vs Rodgers-less Packers)
Loggains: 5 for 14(35.7%) on 3rd down attempts
Loggains: Total Avg distance on 3rd down  = 10.1 yards
Loggains: Play selection on 3rd down  = 0 Rushes | 14 Passes 

^^^It's an improvement.

[G08]

46 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I think right now Kush is getting the nod because of his experience. I don't think he's bad at all. In fact, I think he's a perfect placeholder while Daniels get used to the speed of the game, the plaubook, signals, etc. IMO.  

I've been saying all along that Whitehair has all of the physical tools to be one of the better centers in the league but mentally he just don't have it - way too many mental lapses. I was hoping that last year was just an anomaly and Heistand and he would fix these issues. But that's now two games (including preseason) where that's obviously not the case.

Aside from the two bad snaps he had in this game (one of which Trubisky saved from going over his head) he's also the reason why Howard failed to get a 1st down on a 3rd and 1 run in the 2nd quarter - Whitehair just let Clark toss him to the side and make a play.

Which by the way, for everyone wondering why Nagy didn't go for it on 3rd down late in the game....this may have been the reason. Not saying I support the call, just saying that it's a possibility.

 

 

Yep! I caught this the second time I watched the game. Makes me feel a little better about Nagy not running on 3rd and short later in the game.

[Sugashane]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I think right now Kush is getting the nod because of his experience. I don't think he's bad at all. In fact, I think he's a perfect placeholder while Daniels get used to the speed of the game, the plaubook, signals, etc. IMO.  

I've been saying all along that Whitehair has all of the physical tools to be one of the better centers in the league but mentally he just don't have it - way too many mental lapses. I was hoping that last year was just an anomaly and Heistand and he would fix these issues. But that's now two games (including preseason) where that's obviously not the case.

Aside from the two bad snaps he had in this game (one of which Trubisky saved from going over his head) he's also the reason why Howard failed to get a 1st down on a 3rd and 1 run in the 2nd quarter - Whitehair just let Clark toss him to the side and make a play.

Which by the way, for everyone wondering why Nagy didn't go for it on 3rd down late in the game....this may have been the reason. Not saying I support the call, just saying that it's a possibility.

 

 

 

Right there I just keep seeing the gap available for a QB sneak. Right up the 2 gap. Ugh...

[JAF-N72EX]

1 hour ago, Sugashane said:

 

Right there I just keep seeing the gap available for a QB sneak. Right up the 2 gap. Ugh...

I get your point. But keep in mind, you're looking at the play in hindsight. If the initial play call was a QB sneak then the blocking assignments also change as well.