Sugashane Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 Was helping renovate a bathroom so I missed it, but reading the comments here and some clips show mostly positives. Eberflus didn't have to go vs McVay while he had Nacua and Kupp but he seemed to win the battle of wits while working with a rookie QB so that's still a win in my book. Would defonitely.liked to have seem more involvement with the big 3 WRs for sure but he was at least efficient and there were some penalties that dropped his numbers. I can't complain about much other than missing the game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 2 hours ago, StLunatic88 said: And if he let Caleb throw it, and it gets tipped for a pick? Or his surest handed receiver had his 1 in 100 drops, or makes a catch then gets stripped? Or that extra 35 seconds is the difference of them having to chuck a Hail Mary from the other side of the 50 and a clean shot into the end zone inside the red zone? You and every meathead in Chicago would be SCREAMING that it’s yet another impossible way that Flus managed to lose a game. Bad things can happen on literally every play, yes. Which is why it’s always about risk mitigation. If it wasn’t we would see teams call “Da Bomb” from Blitz every play. And the least risky thing was to run the ball, kill another 1/3 of the time remaining in the game and let your all world punter pin them deep for your great defense to stop. i am honestly shocked that this is even a discussion. Maybe the unrealistic standards that decades of Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes have created really skew perspectives. Caleb Williams may one day be in that echelon of QB, but he ain’t that guy right now. Wouldn’t be me screaming in your hypothetical. Certainly some would, but reasonable aggression with an eye toward winning the game right now with a common conversion is an entirely acceptable risk to me even if it ultimately doesn’t work out. We weren’t talking about 3rd and 10+ here where we need a long developing pass pattern or the play happening deep in our own territory or in adverse field conditions. Those are different scenarios entirely. This was 3rd and medium from plus field position in perfect weather against one of the weakest secondaries in the entire league. Even if there were a turnover on the play, LA is still probably 60ish yards away from a TD, so the risk is relatively minimal relative to the potential reward of the game being over right then and there IMO. Besides, if after they punted had the likely future HOF QB on the other sideline led LA down the field for a last second TD you know as well as I do that the fan base and media (locally and nationally) would have eviscerated Flus for his conservative game management too. If you get it right you’re a genius, and if you get it wrong you’re a boob. That’s just the gig. I fully understand and accept that not everyone would be as willing to pass there as me. There’s no wrong decision to be made IMO except the one that doesn’t work out, which could very well be either of them. But c’mon now - you don’t have to have an all world QB to give your guy the chance to convert a 3rd and 5 in plus territory late to win the game. Far lesser QBs are entrusted to throw in that scenario all the time. Also, if you are going to run it there, then run the ball! Having our 4th best (?) active runner trying to get 5 yards on the ground there is just dumb. If we’re looking to mitigate risk here, I would contend that running with Williams there instead of one of your RBs almost surely increases the chances of a worst case scenario fumble (Swift has fumbled once every 94.88 touches over his career, and he’s the most likely of he/Johnson/Herbert to put the ball on the ground historically). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 (edited) 8 hours ago, AZBearsFan said: But c’mon now - you don’t have to have an all world QB to give your guy the chance to convert a 3rd and 5 in plus territory late to win the game. Far lesser QBs are entrusted to throw in that scenario all the time. The Eagles just did this with Jalen Hurts and Saquon Barkley, and it cost them the game. And nearly the entire football world would say those two are currently better/more trustworthy than who we would be using. And guess what, everyone was screaming that Siriani is an idiot, rightfully so It doesn’t happen “all the time” because every single analytical model tells you to run down the clock there. It quite literally flys in the face of what all Bears fans constantly scream that they want to see out of this coaching staff. It’s a completely unnecessary risk Running the ball is the winning play. And there’s not really a debate to even be had regardless if you are using analytics or just common sense. If you put the ball in the air, every risk goes up, and your chances of winning go down. And you’d rather have that just in the name of “being aggressive”? Sorry, I’ll take them being smart and the win that comes along with it. Edited October 2 by StLunatic88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 51 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said: doesn’t happen “all the time” because every single analytical model tells you to run down the clock there. It quite literally flys in the face of what all Bears fans constantly scream that they want to see out of this coaching staff. It’s a completely unnecessary risk “All the time” was probably the wrong phrase for me to use, but it’s not like teams only run the ball in similar situations. What PHI did isn’t the standard, but at the same time what Sirianni did isn’t nearly as much an outlier as it used to be. Conservative and risk averse also says to punt on 4th and 6 inches in your own territory and to take the points early in the game and what not but teams don’t always follow that model, and that’s fine by me. Hell, looking back on it, Flus did exactly what I advocated for just last year against CAR in almost the exact same scenario with his backup QB in the game (lesser opponent likely a factor), so he sees that there’s a time and place for it even if it wasn’t Sunday against LA. Perhaps I should’ve given him more credit in my OP. Again, I’m not saying the approach Flus Sunday took was wrong. What I am saying is that giving LA potentially several more plays to run also opens up the possibility for things to go wrong that could beat us too. I’m saying is that the more conservative approach isn’t always the best one, and that trying to win the game in one play where I can take LA’s chance to win entirely off the table rather than trying to stop LA on several plays (had they not thrown an INT on the first play) would’ve been an acceptable risk there to me, and I suspect to many others. I didn’t think that would be such a hot button position to take. Either way - we clearly see this one differently and I’m good with that. I’m all for the lively discussion. It worked this time, and that’s all that really matters, isn’t it? 🍻 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLCbear Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 On 10/1/2024 at 11:31 AM, StLunatic88 said: no time outs. this. and game flow. and Tory was on FIRE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLCbear Posted October 2 Share Posted October 2 First half was aWful. We should've been down 9-0 at halftime. Luckily D forced the turnover that gave us 7, and they missed an eASy FG. They got ball 1st after half and added another FG. Should've been down 12-0 when we started our 1st drive in 2nd half, which is ALOT diff from being UP 7-6 at half... Flus got pretty dang lucky in both wins.. 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.