Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Broncofan

Week 2 GDT: CHI (0-1) @ DEN (0-1)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

Brandon Allen Started with the Jags than 3rd qb for the rams.

Do we have a 3rd? Seems like forfeit territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Helicopter said:

Do we have a 3rd? Seems like forfeit territory.

Third right now is Brett Rypien on the practice squad. I'm on board with it. No vet on his last legs would come into this situation we aren't a contender for a title and an overpay doesn't make sense. 

Could we of Picked a guy like Kizer who has had regular season snaps, or signed Brock Osweiler, or kyle sloter sure. Brandon Allen I'll take over Kevin Hogan.

This guy makes sense because once Lock is Healthy and eligible to practice after week 6 return him and get number 2 practice reps against the number 1 D. If Lock doesn't return from IR I'd be right on board with you questioning the move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything more frustrating to hear amongst football writers when they say, "you have to establish the run"?

NFL teams are not stupid - they know when a team is relying on one facet of an Offense. The Bears will not let us win this game by running the ball without us having some production through the air.

Like I said last week, we need to be productive in favourable passing looks, i.e on 1st down against base personnel. We run so many 12 personnel packages; we need chunk plays on 1st down to get the Bears into pass defense looks to free up running lanes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lomaxgrUK said:

Is there anything more frustrating to hear amongst football writers when they say, "you have to establish the run"?

NFL teams are not stupid - they know when a team is relying on one facet of an Offense. The Bears will not let us win this game by running the ball without us having some production through the air.

Like I said last week, we need to be productive in favourable passing looks, i.e on 1st down against base personnel. We run so many 12 personnel packages; we need chunk plays on 1st down to get the Bears into pass defense looks to free up running lanes.

One of the things I liked Monday was our ability to stretch the field. Best deep attack we've had in years. If we could hook up on some deep routes early it would go a long way to accomplishing what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams have been exploiting our base D in the passing game and our nickel D in the run game, would make sense for us to do the same to other teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BroncoBruin said:

Teams have been exploiting our base D in the passing game and our nickel D in the run game, would make sense for us to do the same to other teams. 

A reporter once asked Shanahan about play calling. He responded, "it's easy, run when they're expecting pass and pass when they're expecting run".  I always got a kick out of that.

TD made his career running on 2nd and 3rd and long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

Is there anything more frustrating to hear amongst football writers when they say, "you have to establish the run"?

NFL teams are not stupid - they know when a team is relying on one facet of an Offense. The Bears will not let us win this game by running the ball without us having some production through the air.

Like I said last week, we need to be productive in favourable passing looks, i.e on 1st down against base personnel. We run so many 12 personnel packages; we need chunk plays on 1st down to get the Bears into pass defense looks to free up running lanes.

Agreed.  Now, to be clear, successful O’s establish the run.  It wears out the opposition D and sets up play actin so nicely.   And you have to be able to convert 3rd and short with the run   When you can’t, it makes O’s much easier to defend.   But I am with you 100 percent on teams needing to gameplan run establishment effectively - which the run-on-first down 2/3 or more model really is outdated.

The CW that you should mostly run on first down is a huge misconception in today’s NFL.   That IMO is the problem with out-of-touch OC’s.    I don’t mind to see run on 1st down.  I love to see run 3-4x in a row to wear out a team D late.   But I absolutely hate seeing run - run - pass as the predictable “safe” series.  It’s so easy to defend.  

Another related antiquated concept - play action as the only pass play protecting leads.   Using play action when you are protecting a lead on 1st down doesn’t work as well if the D calls a run blitz because then there are defending crashing the box.  Calling play action definitely works but even better when the D is pinching in on the trenches and trying to plug the holes inside and not having safeties or OLB’s blitzing into the backfield to stop the RB from the outside (that’s when having the QB with back turned to the play kills O’s).   It’s a great tool used between the 20’s and knowing which D’s don’t outside run blitz.   In the red zone, or trapped deep in your own end, not having the QB looking at the field to go through read progressions, is bad play calling, especially if you only have 1-2 weapons in pass game - they are likely still being keyed on.   The worst - when you are behind with time running out or down multiple scores - the element of surprise is lost.  

I want O’s that can establish the run.  But being creative and unpredictable enough is the key.  Calling pass on 1st down, having an effective short pass game as the outlet if the deeper look isn’t there,  to create 2nd and short, works way better.   Succeeding in the intermediate - deep game then opens up the short pass lanes and run game.   

Our O hasn’t been able to establish a good intermediate to deep pass game the last 3 years.  We haven’t had any real outlet game when the top 2 targets (in past, Sanders & DT / now Sutton) aren’t there.   We then revert to running on 1st when teams expect it; against decent to good D’s we face obv passing situations.   When we are ahead or against awful run D’s we can piecemeal it but it’s why we get slaughtered on O so many Sundays.  Fabs get frustrated and wonder why we don’t run more.   The problem is if our pass game sucks hard D’s can stuff the run.  GB showed that  in spades vs  the Bears.   Until our pass game improves with both better OL play (overall) and QB play we are going to keep having the same complaints.   Hopefully Risner starts as the foundation for the OL - QB, well we have to wait on Lock to know what our future looks like.  

PS - having said all of that the trick play by Scangarelli at the 8 isn’t how you do it lol.   Passing off a 11 / 12 formation gives D several diff options to account for   That trick play removed all need to account for the run.   Dumb, dumb, dumb design from the 8.  For a 2 pt convert with a mobile QB with a risk of QB draw maybe (last year with Mullens / Beathard in SF?).  But not Flacco & our personnel.  

 

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds like Fangio is considering using CHJ as a shadow vs. ARob and playing the base pass D otherwise.  Something to look for.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t want to make its own thread for it and excuse me if I missed the convo already but thoughts about us being rumored to have contacted Dolphins about Minkah? Could definitely help in covering those TE and RB’s which we haven’t been able to figure out for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Counselor said:

I don’t want to make its own thread for it and excuse me if I missed the convo already but thoughts about us being rumored to have contacted Dolphins about Minkah? Could definitely help in covering those TE and RB’s which we haven’t been able to figure out for years.

I think it's a wise move we can debate compensation @BroncoBruin and I have done but it's definitely worth a phone call . I'd would be mad if we gave a first up, I'd understand a second and could live with it, a third and some change would be ideal.

Justin Simmons hasn't lived up to the fs role, Callahan is an injury risk, and this is CHJ's last season here most likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

I think it's a wise move we can debate compensation @BroncoBruin and I have done but it's definitely worth a phone call . I'd would be mad if we gave a first up, I'd understand a second and could live with it, a third and some change would be ideal.

Justin Simmons hasn't lived up to the fs role, Callahan is an injury risk, and this is CHJ's last season here most likely. 

I’d be okay with a 2nd. Not a first. And agree a third and something would be ideal. I just don’t understand how a team can be so awful in one area for so long and nothing really has worked to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Counselor said:

I don’t want to make its own thread for it and excuse me if I missed the convo already but thoughts about us being rumored to have contacted Dolphins about Minkah? Could definitely help in covering those TE and RB’s which we haven’t been able to figure out for years.

Dude you’re the Mod.  Be better! 

(Kidding if it’s not clear the internet needs a sarcasm icon). 

FWIW it’s a sign of how bad we are roster wise at present we spend more time talking about the future than the Bears week 2 game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Counselor said:

I’d be okay with a 2nd. Not a first. And agree a third and something would be ideal. I just don’t understand how a team can be so awful in one area for so long and nothing really has worked to fix it.

I personally feel this front office has been too slow to pull the plug on failed experiments. @BroncoBruin is alluding to it in the oaktown thread with banking on Roby and missing on solid plug and play corners corners, missing on talented wrs in 2014 and 2017 because the talent on the roster is being over valued. You can say your same phrase at multiple positions. 

This front office fails to realize if a guy isn't panning out due to age DT towards the end, Roby/Bolles reaching  their ceiling you can draft guys high to develop and replace those guys. If they do come around flip them for value. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

FWIW it’s a sign of how bad we are roster wise at present we spend more time talking about the future than the Bears week 2 game.  

They absolutely have a great chance to win this game if Trubisky couldn't handle the smoke from the packers D at home I doubt he comes into Mile high and torches us. 

I wanna see the I don't want to be here look from Mitch. Similar to the cowboys game in 2017. Even if the depth and talent is lacking in the grand scheme this game is winnable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Dude you’re the Mod.  Be better! 

(Kidding if it’s not clear the internet needs a sarcasm icon). 

FWIW it’s a sign of how bad we are roster wise at present we spend more time talking about the future than the Bears week 2 game.  

I tried to make you a mod in my place first so yeah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×