WindyCity Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 Can anyone really mention a not qualified positive about Howard that does not involve referencing 2016? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 The Bears had 468 rushing attempts last season and I would expect that to hold or even have a slight reduction as Mitchell improves The question now is how does it get split up [2018 carries in this offense] Mike Davis Tarik Cohen [99] Draft Pick Cordarelle Patterson Other WRs [16] QB [19 called runs] 4th RB [Mizzell, Cunningham, Nall] [20] Random Craziness [Hicks, Burton] [2] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 How I could see it breaking down, Mike Davis [151] -He had 112 carries last season and a slight up tick is probably realistic. Tarik Cohen [115] -This is an extra carry a game for Cohen which seems realistic and gives Cohen another guaranteed touch. Draft Pick [113] -Some of these could be siphoned off if the rookie struggles, but this 7 carries a game which I think is reasonable for a rookie specifically one drafted in the 3rd round. Cordarelle Patterson [32] -2 carries a game seems reasonable for a player that is going to be used as a chess piece and used to bother DCs. Other WRs [16] -I think Gabriel and Miller will continue to keep their limited runs just to keep it in the minds of DCs and defenders on the jet sweep motion. QB [19 called runs] 4th RB [Mizzell, Cunningham, Nall] [20] -I see this being a little less if it is Mizzell and maybe a little more if it is Nall in short yardage situations. Random Craziness [Hicks, Burton] [2] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 20 minutes ago, WindyCity said: Can anyone really mention a not qualified positive about Howard that does not involve referencing 2016? Why? What's the point of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Heinz D. said: Why? What's the point of that? Because 3 years ago is an eternity in the NFL and the most compelling arguments for Howard all seem to involve referencing 3 years ago. In the Bears case it is a new HC, OC, system, QB ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 Sentimentality from bad years of Bears football is clouding a lot of people's vision about what Howard is and what he offers to this offense and the present Bears. I get it, he was the only thing worth cheering for and watching in some dark times. But if you ignore that and look at the evidence that we have right now he is rotational power back that offers nothing in the passing game and no explosiveness. Does anyone think that Howard is going to get 276 touches in Philly? My guess is he has at least 75-100 touches gone before he even lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 6 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: Why? What's the point of that? Because if you remove the season most removed from the present from what he is today as a player it’s pretty clear he’s just a guy talent-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, WindyCity said: Because 3 years ago is an eternity in the NFL and the most compelling arguments for Howard all seem to involve referencing 3 years ago. In the Bears case it is a new HC, OC, system, QB ago. No chance that could affect an RB, for better, or for worse? 2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said: Because if you remove the season most removed from the present from what he is today as a player it’s pretty clear he’s just a guy talent-wise. And what happens if you remove last season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said: Because if you remove the season most removed from the present from what he is today as a player it’s pretty clear he’s just a guy talent-wise. There is a ripple effect to having a more dynamic player in the backfield and someone who can threaten you in the passing game. -If they have to dedicate there better coverage LB to your RB, that is a win. -If they have to cover every guy on the field it becomes much more difficult to blitz -If they have to cover every guy on the field it is much harder to play 2 deep safeties because you need someone up in coverage, which opens up things down field. That is the downside to having someone in the backfield who is not a threat to run a real route and catch more than a check down. Teams do not cover a checkdown, they rally to a checkdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 Just now, Heinz D. said: No chance that could affect an RB, for better, or for worse? And what happens if you remove last season? It did effect him. It exposed his serious limitations as a player. He thrived in the John Fox zone left, zone right, pass 7 times, score 14 points and lose 34 games offense. Why would you remove the most recent data? There is no analyst in the world that would remove the most recent data points. Hey, look at climate change if you remove the last 100 years. Or, look at population growth if you ignore the last 50 years. No problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 58 minutes ago, WindyCity said: It did effect him. It exposed his serious limitations as a player. He thrived in the John Fox zone left, zone right, pass 7 times, score 14 points and lose 34 games offense. Why would you remove the most recent data? There is no analyst in the world that would remove the most recent data points. Hey, look at climate change if you remove the last 100 years. Or, look at population growth if you ignore the last 50 years. No problem here. That's spurious, at best. We've all seen players bounce back from subpar seasons. You know that as well as anybody. Hopefully the Bears get a better fit, and a better player, in the draft. Because right now, I'm not seeing a guy they can lean on currently on the roster. And who knows--maybe you'll end up being right about Howard and he'll be out of the league soon. I don't see any way someone could put forth that point with much certainty, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 1 hour ago, WindyCity said: How I could see it breaking down, Mike Davis [151] -He had 112 carries last season and a slight up tick is probably realistic. Tarik Cohen [115] -This is an extra carry a game for Cohen which seems realistic and gives Cohen another guaranteed touch. Draft Pick [113] -Some of these could be siphoned off if the rookie struggles, but this 7 carries a game which I think is reasonable for a rookie specifically one drafted in the 3rd round. Cordarelle Patterson [32] -2 carries a game seems reasonable for a player that is going to be used as a chess piece and used to bother DCs. Other WRs [16] -I think Gabriel and Miller will continue to keep their limited runs just to keep it in the minds of DCs and defenders on the jet sweep motion. QB [19 called runs] 4th RB [Mizzell, Cunningham, Nall] [20] -I see this being a little less if it is Mizzell and maybe a little more if it is Nall in short yardage situations. Random Craziness [Hicks, Burton] [2] I think as it stands today you will see more of Patterson than people are thinking. Nagy is big on tendencies or not having predictable ones. When I was a kid our coach would let different kids run the ball at end of practice. When new kid went in entire defense was like, "so and so is getting the ball! Key on so and so!" If you just use Patterson for jet/fly sweeps and screens and only play him a handful of downs it isn't really worth it to me. Well, you say, he can also be a decoy. That's true, but I just don't feel like Bears signed him for 1 to 4 plays a game. Someone just asked Nagy if Patterson is worth it if he is just a really good kick returner. Nagy replied that would be disappointing because they didn't sign him just to be a returner. They plan to use him. Patterson and Cohen are two guys that demand attention. They get keyed on every time they are in the game. Why not play both of them more? Why not play both at same time? If something makes a DC uncomfortable do more of it. Same with defense to offense. Offense hates it when you do that, do that more. Patterson is 6"1 235 lbs and wears it well. As a pure athlete he is elite. Use him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted March 31, 2019 Author Share Posted March 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Heinz D. said: And what happens if you remove last season? And his rookie year? Then he's exactly what we say he is: slightly above average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted March 31, 2019 Share Posted March 31, 2019 1 hour ago, WindyCity said: It did effect him. It exposed his serious limitations as a player. He thrived in the John Fox zone left, zone right, pass 7 times, score 14 points and lose 34 games offense. Why would you remove the most recent data? There is no analyst in the world that would remove the most recent data points. Hey, look at climate change if you remove the last 100 years. Or, look at population growth if you ignore the last 50 years. No problem here. To his credit Howard thrived when no other back could. He made some great runs and made them look dumb for waiting so long to start him. Fox's offensive strategy combined with Fangio's bend but don't break scheme was designed to shorten games and keep them competitive or the illusion that they were competitive. Like 4 corners basketball. Keep it close and hope for the upset on a miracle play or two. Not a bad strategy with an undertalented team, but brutal to watch and you go in knowing you are going to lose those like 90% of time. Demoralizing. But the alternative is blow outs and people freak less about a boring 24-16 loss with idea that if this or that happened maybe you could have won versus losing 38-7. It saves face and can keep you around longer. Reality is other team can see you being ultra conservative and they don't take chances either, they score just enough to win comfortably. They just look to take their W and go home. You aren't going to get those miracle plays often. Me, I would rather go for it and lose big. I hate, hate, hate playing not to lose too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted March 31, 2019 Author Share Posted March 31, 2019 34 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: That's spurious, at best. We've all seen players bounce back from subpar seasons. You know that as well as anybody. Hopefully the Bears get a better fit, and a better player, in the draft. Because right now, I'm not seeing a guy they can lean on currently on the roster. And who knows--maybe you'll end up being right about Howard and he'll be out of the league soon. I don't see any way someone could put forth that point with much certainty, though. You probably would've said the same thing prior to 2016 had they traded Carey or Langford prior to the season. Davis will be fine. He's quite possibly going to carry the ball 9-10 times per game. That's all they need. You don't think he can be leaned on for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.