NFL Season 2009

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:28 am

Brando70 wrote:
RobVarak wrote:That Monday Night game was far too entertaining for a game involving the Bears. LOL
I know it's meaningless, that the season is still a huge disappointment, the Bears still have a boatload of issues, and that the Vikings are still going to the playoffs, but anytime the Bears beat Favre I am happy. I can't wait to see that phony d***** get bounced in the playoffs.

No...The game meant something to the Vikings and could play a role in Favre getting bounced in the playoffs.

Yes... The Bears have many issues. Vikes dont screw up the xp and its a terrible loss ...If if and buts... It was a sweet win and Cutler actually looked like the Cutler from the ad.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:43 am

Look I am happy with a Bears win, it was an entertaining game but last night was a prime example of why this team / organizatyion needs to be scrapped.

First thing I notice on the first kick Davis fielding a short kick again that the return man could of gotten to, he did this last week a lot. It's a prime example of the "me" attitude on this team, I guess someone got in his ear because I didn't see him do it the rest of the game.

The Bears D comes out and attacks in the first half, plays physically. The Vikings adjust and the Bears go into the soft cover two again. Letting that old DB Favre dump off down field. The Bears fail to adjust, at least on the game tying pass they were in man to man. It took a high throw and a great catch by Rice to bring it in. I'd rather see that then this soft zone crap, I don't think I can stomach another year of the cover 2, the league has moved on.

Why did it take all year for Williams to be put at Left Tackle, you know the spot he is used to? Why did it take to week 15 to see Armoshadu?

The Bears will fire Turner (justified IMO and not on this year but his body of work) and call it a day. Lovie stays and so does Angelo who IMO is the Bears biggest problem.

I'm glad everyone in Chicago is giddy today, but what I saw last night was a polished turd. Yeah it was a win, but it was still a turd.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:19 pm

Danimal wrote:First thing I notice on the first kick Davis fielding a short kick again that the return man could of gotten to, he did this last week a lot. It's a prime example of the "me" attitude on this team, I guess someone got in his ear because I didn't see him do it the rest of the game.

That happened right in front of me and there's no way the return man could have gotten to that ball. You didn't see it happen again because the return men adjusted to the fact that the ball was not going to be kicked deep.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to say that Lovie will remain as coach. At this point I would be surprised if he did. Beating the Vikings and possibly the Lions will not be enough to keep his job. That decision has been made already and it appears as if that decision is to fire him. Angelo had every opportunity under the sun to go to bat for Lovie before the Ravens game last week and he did not. No vote of confidence from the king of votes of confidence is very telling.

There's also reports from people close to the organization that Virginia has contacted the Rooney family inquiring about Cowher. The McCaskey's and Rooney's go way back and I'm sure the Rooney's will have nothing but nice things to say about Cowher.

The Bears have many holes but a lot of teams do. The Bears biggest hole is their entire coaching staff. That needs to be the first hole addressed. The o-line has looked better each week since moving Williams to left tackle. Aromoshadu has emerged as an actual NFL wide receiver. A real coaching staff would move Hester to the number 3 or 4 where he belongs and you hope to find a number 1 out there somehow. If not you see if Aromoshadu can turn into one. He is the only Bears receiver that knows what to do when a play breaks down. He is the only Bears receiver that makes adjustments on the ball and can win those 50/50 balls. He's no all star just yet but he's got the most skills of the entire corp.

For a team that only had 3 defensive starters on the field at the end of the game, they looked pretty good at times on defense too. They obviously have the talent as evidenced by the first half. What got in their way last night? Coaching. The shift to the soft cover 2 was a terrible idea that let the Vikings back in the game. Notice how they shifted back to the more aggressive style in OT and they actually made two stops?

The win wasn't a turd, the season was. If anything this win showed that the Bears have some talent and are not as far away as everyone would think they are. It also magnified just how poorly this coaching staff has been over the past 3 years. If they let go of Lovie this team can get back in the thick of things with a few acquisitions. If not expect another 5-11 to 7-9 season under Lovie.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:35 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:That happened right in front of me and there's no way the return man could have gotten to that ball. You didn't see it happen again because the return men adjusted to the fact that the ball was not going to be kicked deep.

The return man was right behind him, as I recall. I'm not going to go look for a replay, to verify it but I noticed a discussion between Manning and Davis after the return as they were leaving the field and mannings body language tells me he was saying "get the f*** out of the way"

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:38 pm

I think Lovie will be back. Shouldn't be, but I think he will be. Turner will be the fall guy. They need to find some coach who can work with Cutler one way or another. Clearly he doesn't see eye-to-eye with Turner and that sorry excuse for a QB's coach.

They played a Cover-2 less than 30% of the time last year, and only slightly more than that last night. They mixed it up pretty well considering that the secondary was obliterated with injuries.

Tommie Harris continues to be utterly enigmatic to me. I don't know if it's attitude, injuries or ineffectiveness, but his inconsistency is just staggering.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:44 pm

RobVarak wrote:They played a Cover-2 less than 30% of the time last year, and only slightly more than that last night. They mixed it up pretty well considering that the secondary was obliterated with injuries.

Again I disagree. When they came out at halftime with the lead they went into a soft cover two to try and milk the clock and time down. The bend but don't break, except they always break. It's a sorry excuse for a philosophy IMO, especially starting a half and it's the exact personality of Smith.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:27 pm

So let me get this straight. You want a team with bad starting CB's who have been replaced with backup, even worse CB's to play more man-to-man while they have the lead?

Can't say that sounds like a winning recipe to me.

The difference in the Bears D between the first and second half was the pressure. In the first half Harris, Brown and (shockingly) Adams did a nice job of collapsing the pocket and disrupting Favre's timing. They denied him the time he needed to get his receivers into the seams . Foror running across the zones. most of the second half this was not the case, although they were able to get it done in the OT.

I don't think Lovie is a good head coach. I would like to see him and Angelo replaced with better people. But I don't like much of the personal criticism of Lovie's personality.

People accuse him of passivity or lack of passion because he's not a Type-A sociopath. I don't buy that. I think he cares...he's just not terribly competent at managing an NFL team.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:43 pm

RobVarak wrote:So let me get this straight. You want a team with bad starting CB's who have been replaced with backup, even worse CB's to play more man-to-man while they have the lead?

Rob you're talking one game I am talking a defensive philosophy.

I don't like the philosophy but we don't have the corners to play how I want to anyway. Our best is Tillman and to call him a lock down corner would be a stretch. He is a decent CB for the system the Bears play right now.

But to get to last nights game, yeah when I see them picking apart my zone because my LB's are dropping off 15 yards on 3rd and 10's then yeah I want them to mix it up, not wait until they get inside the 10 to get creative.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:43 pm

RobVarak wrote:So let me get this straight. You want a team with bad starting CB's who have been replaced with backup, even worse CB's to play more man-to-man while they have the lead?

Can't say that sounds like a winning recipe to me.

The difference in the Bears D between the first and second half was the pressure. In the first half Harris, Brown and (shockingly) Adams did a nice job of collapsing the pocket and disrupting Favre's timing. They denied him the time he needed to get his receivers into the seams . Foror running across the zones. most of the second half this was not the case, although they were able to get it done in the OT.

I don't think Lovie is a good head coach. I would like to see him and Angelo replaced with better people. But I don't like much of the personal criticism of Lovie's personality.

People accuse him of passivity or lack of passion because he's not a Type-A sociopath. I don't buy that. I think he cares...he's just not terribly competent at managing an NFL team.

The pressure came back in overtime when they put the DB's on the line of scrimmage and manned up. All I'm saying is they strayed from what brought them success in the first half and gave up 30 points. They switch back in OT and force a 3-and-out and a turnover. That's bad coaching.

Also, I could not agree with you more about the personal criticism of Lovie's personality. I really like Lovie and that is why it took me until this year to finally admit it was time for him to go. There's too many Chicago fans with the meathead mentality that Lovie doesn't care because he's not going ballistic on the sidelines. I don't need emotion from the coach, I need football smarts. Lovie and crew do not develop young talent, particularly offensive talent, nor do they recognize talent they have (Aromashodu not playing until game 13 despite how good he looked in preseason and Cutler pointing it out.) I think he is gone and if he is I wish him the best of luck.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:18 pm

Last night's game was very entertaining. Favre.....love em or hate em, the guy can flat play ball. If he had some semblence of pass protection in that last set of downs, they might still be playing. What stood out to me though, was Minn's lack of covergae on special teams defense. It seemed like Chicago always had great starting field position and that bit them in the @ss in the O.T.

p.s. Still like the college version of OT better! Wins and losses shouldn't be determined by a coin flip.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:20 pm

JackB1 wrote: Wins and losses shouldn't be determined by a coin flip.

Not saying I disagree, but last nights game was not. Both teams had two possessions if I recall, I know they had one each.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:43 pm

Danimal wrote:
JackB1 wrote: Wins and losses shouldn't be determined by a coin flip.
Not saying I disagree, but last nights game was not. Both teams had two possessions if I recall, I know they had one each.

I know, but many times the flip means everything. At least during the regular game you receive one half and kick the other. The O.T. should represent a mini game. I love the college system. Both offense and defense have to perform to win.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:47 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Danimal wrote:
JackB1 wrote: Wins and losses shouldn't be determined by a coin flip.
Not saying I disagree, but last nights game was not. Both teams had two possessions if I recall, I know they had one each.
I know, but many times the flip means everything. At least during the regular game you receive one half and kick the other. The O.T. should represent a mini game. I love the college system. Both offense and defense have to perform to win.

Which reminds me. Can someone explain why they now call it we defer instead of we elect to kick or we want to receive like in years past? If i'm not mistaken it's basically the same thing, just the wording's changed.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:53 pm

When you defer you're letting the other team make the choice of what they want to do. If I understand your question correctly.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:58 pm

College football OT completely strips away special teams and the importance of field position. I would absolutely hate it if the NFL went to college rules. The defense can score on any given play just like the offense so why take away the importance of special teams? I don't buy the argument that coin flips decide the games. The team that wins the coin toss only wins 60% of the OT's and not all of those are on the first possession either.

Rodster · Post by **Rodster** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:05 pm

Danimal wrote:When you defer you're letting the other team make the choice of what they want to do. If I understand your question correctly.

Yeah you understood it. So here's my question under the old rules if you won the coin flip you either elected to received or would kick to your opponents. In the second half it would reverse. Also IIRC if you won the coin toss and you received the other team chose which endzone they wanted.

So my question now is what does a team gain with the new rules by winning the coin toss then allowing the other team to make the decision of what they want to do?

If they want the ball you get it in the 2nd half. If they kick to you then they get in the 2nd half. It seems like the same thing with different wording unless i'm missing something.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:06 pm

JackB1 wrote:I know, but many times the flip means everything. At least during the regular game you receive one half and kick the other. The O.T. should represent a mini game. I love the college system. Both offense and defense have to perform to win.

Why not have them play a whole quarter then? I don't understand the logic. Everyone always cites injuries a guy can be hurt on play #1 or play #160.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:00 am

The college OT system is awful because it completely changes the nature of the game. I am open to the NFL exploring options like both teams have to have one possession or you have to score six points to win, but the NCAA system is a glorified soccer shooutout.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:26 am

If you gave both teams the ball at least once I think you'd have the exact opposite effect on what OT is trying to do and that's preventing ties. I still say that if you do your job on special teams and then on defense you give yourself a chance to win in OT should you not win the coin toss. The only option I would be open to them exploring would be how they determine who gets the ball. I wouldn't be opposed to awarding the ball to the team who had something like:
The most total yards
Who won the plus minus in turnovers
Most time of possession

I also wouldn't be opposed to just giving the ball to the home team first as an added home field advantage.

Of course, I personally feel that the NFL overtime is perfect I think doing something like that would silence the cries of coin tosses determining the outcome of a game.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:06 am

I think I might have said this earlier in this very thread, but I love the idea of the winner in OT being the first team to 6.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:20 am

Brando70 wrote:The college OT system is awful because it completely changes the nature of the game. I am open to the NFL exploring options like both teams have to have one possession or you have to score six points to win, but the NCAA system is a glorified soccer shooutout.

RobVarak wrote:I think I might have said this earlier in this very thread, but I love the idea of the winner in OT being the first team to 6.

Signing...You guys have me on board.

The Bears game was not determined by the flip. The Vikings had two pathetic possessions.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:07 am

How about both teams line up on their own goal lines and the referee rolls the ball out to the center of the field and its a mad scramble to recover the ball. Kind of like "foosball"

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:47 pm

bkrich83 wrote:
Leebo33 wrote:[
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commenta ... id=4776931

Then Caldwell should be scrutinized heavily, as Howard Bryant points out, for his handling of Manning during the season:

"Take, for example, how Caldwell handled Manning earlier this season:
• Led 31-10 in Week 3 at Arizona with 11:31 left. Manning played the whole game.
• Led 28-3 in Week 4 versus Seattle with 8:02 left in the third quarter. Manning played the whole game.
• Led 31-9 in Week 5 at Tennessee with 7:32 left and a bye week coming up. Manning played the whole game.
• Led 28-6 in Week 7 at St. Louis at the end of third quarter. Manning played the whole game.

So Caldwell coached a certain way all season long. Why, then, would Manning be more at risk on Sunday than he had been during the rest of the regular season? If the stated objective is to win the Super Bowl, wasn't Manning unnecessarily at risk on the field for the entire game in a 42-6 win over the Rams?"
Those aren't scores you see NFL teams rest their starters in. Nor will they usually pull the QB until midway through the 4th.

The clinched the #1 seed. They felt the need to get their guys some playing time. At the same time they wanted to minimize the risk.

I don't see the problem, nor is it particularly uncommon. The Chargers have done the exact same thing in the past.

I looked back to the merger and could not find any instances where the Chargers pulled or did not start an un-injured starting QB in the second to last game of the season.

I could see not playing starters in the last game. Nobody wants to see this happen:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3796148

But it's just my personal opinion that pulling starters that don't already have injuries or are injury-prone and worrying about getting hurt with 2 weeks left in the regular season and ahead of a bye week is distracting. It wasn't like the Jets game was particularly chippy or anyone had a big lead.

I *may* be able to understand it better if those players don't play at all this week, but they could get hurt very easily in a quarter or half of play this week...look at Ben last year and his 2nd quarter injury.

We'll see. I think the bye week is an incredible advantage and helps those teams that have it. I'm not sure that playing 1 half of competitive football from December 21st to January 16/17th is that advantageous.

bkrich83 · Post by **bkrich83** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:52 pm

Leebo33 wrote: I looked back to the merger and could not find any instances where the Chargers pulled or did not start an un-injured starting QB in the second to last game of the season.

I could see not playing starters in the last game. Nobody wants to see this happen:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3796148

But it's just my personal opinion that pulling starters that don't already have injuries or are injury-prone and worrying about getting hurt with 2 weeks left in the regular season and ahead of a bye week is distracting. It wasn't like the Jets game was particularly chippy or anyone had a big lead.

I *may* be able to understand it better if those players don't play at all this week, but they could get hurt very easily in a quarter or half of play this week...look at Ben last year and his 2nd quarter injury.

We'll see. I think the bye week is an incredible advantage and helps those teams that have it. I'm not sure that playing 1 half of competitive football from December 21st to January 16/17th is that advantageous.

I was thinking the last game of the season.

But as it stands, the game was meaningless. Why even risk your guys more than you want to? Get them some play time, and get them out.

It's a complete non-issue to me, and a smart football move.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:46 pm

Leebo33 wrote:But it's just my personal opinion that pulling starters that don't already have injuries or are injury-prone and worrying about getting hurt with 2 weeks left in the regular season and ahead of a bye week is distracting. It wasn't like the Jets game was particularly chippy or anyone had a big lead.

The Eagles did just that the year they made the Super Bowl. McNabb played sparingly in the penultimate game when they were 13-1 and sat for the final game.

There are not many cases where a team has the #1 completely locked up after the 14th game, so many teams often have incentive to play until the last game. In the case of the 2007 Patriots, they obviously went for the undefeated season, and all people talk about his how they came up short.

Bottom line is that the Super Bowl is the goal and there is no point in risking injuries to key starters when it does nothing to enhance their SB chances. With a team like the Colts, which has so many veterans and has a lot of playoff experience, I don't see extra rest being a problem.