Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sugashane

Bears Trade Back Into 2nd for Anthony Miller

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sugashane said:

Lol. 

We will habe to make sure everyone gets their quota.  

 

To me the lack of clarity outside of Robinson is a really good thing. The ball could be going anywhere. That’s harder to defend for sure - someone is going to get a favorable matchup every play, and sometimes multiple someones. 

Also, I LOOOOOOOVE how well our passing game diversity sets up Jordan Howard to run against favorable fronts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Youre not kidding.  KC ran out of so many diiferent 3 AND 4 wr formations last year.  So much of the run is going to be based on MT10s read, play action is going to be deadly

As someone who has spent hours over the last few months focusing on play calling from each team in the league, I can't tell you how wrong you are on this, actually. KC ran alot of 2 WR sets and not so much from 3 and 4's.

2 WR sets 
KC 308 plays (10th most in the league)
CHI 417 plays (3rd most in the league)

3 WR sets
KC 542 plays (22nd)
CHI 393 plays (32nd)

4 WR sets
KC 7 plays (23rd) 
CHI 2 plays (30th)

KC was not that much different than Loggains in terms of use. The difference was how and when they were used. For example 

11 Personnel on early downs 

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)
CHI = 174 (71% / 29%)
KC = 314 (58% / 42%)

12 Personnel on early downs

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)
CHI = 135 (33% / 67%)
KC = 146 (59% / 41%)

As you can above(and as AZ alluded too early), Chicago's personnel grouping alone tipped off defenses. It was literally as easy as "11-personnel....okay they're passing"--"12 personnel, they're running".  
 

I'll get more into this later on but here is some more food for thought.

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)

  00-Personnel 01-Personnel 02-Personnel 03-Personnel 10-Personnel 11-Personnel 12-Personnel 13-Personnel 14-Personnel 20-personnel 21-Personnel 22-Personnel 23-Personnel 30-Personnel 31-Personnel 32-Personnel
Reid (Weeks 1-12) -- 5 (80% / 20%) 4 (75% / 25%) 5 (80% / 20%) -- 333 (68% / 32%) 163 (64% / 26%) 45 (53% / 47%) -- 2 (50% / 50%) 52 (48% / 52%) 51 (12% / 88%) 3 (0% / 100%) 1 (0% / 100%) -- 2 (0% / 100%)
Nagy (Weeks 13-17) -- 1 (100% / 0%) 2 (100% / 0%) -- 1 (100% / 0%) 201 (58% / 42%) 76 (55% / 45%) 14 (50% / 50%) -- -- 11 (82% / 18%) 8 (25% / 75%) 3 (67% / 33%) -- -- 2 (0% / 100%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

As someone who has spent hours over the last few months focusing on play calling from each team in the league, I can't tell you how wrong you are on this, actually. KC ran alot of 2 WR sets and not so much from 3 and 4's.

2 WR sets 
KC 308 plays (10th most in the league)
CHI 417 plays (3rd most in the league)

3 WR sets
KC 542 plays (22nd)
CHI 393 plays (32nd)

4 WR sets
KC 7 plays (23rd) 
CHI 2 plays (30th)

KC was not that much different than Loggains in terms of use. The difference was how and when they were used. For example 

11 Personnel on early downs 

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)
CHI = 174 (71% / 29%)
KC = 314 (58% / 42%)

12 Personnel on early downs

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)
CHI = 135 (33% / 67%)
KC = 146 (59% / 41%)

As you can above(and as AZ alluded too early), Chicago's personnel grouping alone tipped off defenses. It was literally as easy as "11-personnel....okay they're passing"--"12 personnel, they're running".  
 

I'll get more into this later on but here is some more food for thought.

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)

 

 

  00-Personnel 01-Personnel 02-Personnel 03-Personnel 10-Personnel 11-Personnel 12-Personnel 13-Personnel 14-Personnel 20-personnel 21-Personnel 22-Personnel 23-Personnel 30-Personnel 31-Personnel 32-Personnel
Reid (Weeks 1-12) -- 5 (80% / 20%) 4 (75% / 25%) 5 (80% / 20%) -- 333 (68% / 32%) 163 (64% / 26%) 45 (53% / 47%) -- 2 (50% / 50%) 52 (48% / 52%) 51 (12% / 88%) 3 (0% / 100%) 1 (0% / 100%) -- 2 (0% / 100%)
Nagy (Weeks 13-17) -- 1 (100% / 0%) 2 (100% / 0%) -- 1 (100% / 0%) 201 (58% / 42%) 76 (55% / 45%) 14 (50% / 50%) -- -- 11 (82% / 18%) 8 (25% / 75%) 3 (67% / 33%) -- -- 2 (0% / 100%)

Guys....i don't think he's just another fan....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, HuskieBear said:

Guys....i don't think he's just another fan....

As I said, I'll get more into this later. I have alot more stuff like this than I plan to post when I'm finished with it all. Comparisons between staff and players, differences in play-calls between players, route concepts comparisons, etc, etc. I posted something similar already in the Packers forum about a month ago and I plant to do the same here. It's just finding the time.

  

 

Edited by JustAnotherFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pool said:

Exactly. We gave up a 4th round pick so we could have a 2nd round pick this year instead of next year. No big deal.

Pace can also recoup a 2nd in next years draft if they can find a trade down partner in the 1st so I'm not too worried. I actually thought it was a relatively small price to pay to grab another 2nd round pick this year even tho to tell you allthe truth I didnt do much scouting on this years class of WRs and wasnt overly familiar with Milller but so far I like what I've read about the kid.

Share this post


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

This is one thing i read from a lot of "experts" saying that Miller is a slot, but Gabriel is a slot so it doesn't make sense. I think we are going to see Gabriel on the outside a lot more, using his speed to gain separation, then Miller in the slot killing them with his routes

Gabriel isn't just a slot tho...people just pin him there cause of his size but I fully expect to see him on the outside too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Madmike90 said:

Gabriel isn't just a slot tho...people just pin him there cause of his size but I fully expect to see him on the outside too.

right, my point exactly. he's not a slot, but people just put him there because of his size. i expect him on the outside far more frequently than anywhere else

Share this post


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

As someone who has spent hours over the last few months focusing on play calling from each team in the league, I can't tell you how wrong you are on this, actually. KC ran alot of 2 WR sets and not so much from 3 and 4's.

2 WR sets 
KC 308 plays (10th most in the league)
CHI 417 plays (3rd most in the league)

3 WR sets
KC 542 plays (22nd)
CHI 393 plays (32nd)

4 WR sets
KC 7 plays (23rd) 
CHI 2 plays (30th)

KC was not that much different than Loggains in terms of use. The difference was how and when they were used. For example 

11 Personnel on early downs 

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)
CHI = 174 (71% / 29%)
KC = 314 (58% / 42%)

12 Personnel on early downs

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)
CHI = 135 (33% / 67%)
KC = 146 (59% / 41%)

As you can above(and as AZ alluded too early), Chicago's personnel grouping alone tipped off defenses. It was literally as easy as "11-personnel....okay they're passing"--"12 personnel, they're running".  
 

I'll get more into this later on but here is some more food for thought.

# of plays (Pass rate / Run Rate)

 

 

  00-Personnel 01-Personnel 02-Personnel 03-Personnel 10-Personnel 11-Personnel 12-Personnel 13-Personnel 14-Personnel 20-personnel 21-Personnel 22-Personnel 23-Personnel 30-Personnel 31-Personnel 32-Personnel
Reid (Weeks 1-12) -- 5 (80% / 20%) 4 (75% / 25%) 5 (80% / 20%) -- 333 (68% / 32%) 163 (64% / 26%) 45 (53% / 47%) -- 2 (50% / 50%) 52 (48% / 52%) 51 (12% / 88%) 3 (0% / 100%) 1 (0% / 100%) -- 2 (0% / 100%)
Nagy (Weeks 13-17) -- 1 (100% / 0%) 2 (100% / 0%) -- 1 (100% / 0%) 201 (58% / 42%) 76 (55% / 45%) 14 (50% / 50%) -- -- 11 (82% / 18%) 8 (25% / 75%) 3 (67% / 33%) -- -- 2 (0% / 100%)

I think you are completely misunderstanding.  Not that they were frequently in 3 or 4 wr sets, but that they would frequently run when they were in those sets (also im talking strictly formations, not personnel.  So Kelce split out or in the slot would still be a 3 wide formation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It makes me happy that this “all good receivers are tall” sentiment—created by the success of Calvin Johnson, Brandon Marshall, and Larry Fitzgerald in the late 2000s—has finally died off, killed by all of the 1st round failures at the position over the past few years.

We’re finally getting back to what’s important: release, route running, separation, quickness, footwork, reading defenses, and understanding the nuances of the position.

Edited by IronMike84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronMike84 said:

It makes me happy that this “all good receivers are tall” sentiment—created by the success of Calvin Johnson, Brandon Marshall, and Larry Fitzgerald in the late 2000s—has finally died off, killed by all of the 1st round failures at the position over the past few years.

We’re finally getting back to what’s important: release, route running, separation, quickness, footwork, reading defenses, and understanding the nuances of the position.

Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald were both tall but they did all the things you talk about. Size gives you an added advantage if you are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TB 1 said:

Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald were both tall but they did all the things you talk about. Size gives you an added advantage if you are good.

Right, Larry Fitzgerald is a total technician. But people started purely obsessing over size. 2009 until just a few years ago, nobody on this forum even wanted to consider signing or drafting a receiver under 6’3”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

I think you are completely misunderstanding.  Not that they were frequently in 3 or 4 wr sets, but that they would frequently run when they were in those sets (also im talking strictly formations, not personnel.  So Kelce split out or in the slot would still be a 3 wide formation)

Okay, I gotcha now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really excited about having this kid, he is going to be a good one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2018 at 8:21 PM, IronMike84 said:

Right, Larry Fitzgerald is a total technician. But people started purely obsessing over size. 2009 until just a few years ago, nobody on this forum even wanted to consider signing or drafting a receiver under 6’3”.

6’5” or bust

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  



×