watchtower41 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) I've always thought of the Panthers as a one dimensional team, and with simple adjustments throughout the course of the game, I saw Carolina as a better than average, very beatable team. The Seahawks finally proved this true yesterday, and as I watched that game, I couldn't help but to dwell even further on the Bears loss last week. I see no reason why Rivera or Lovie couldnt have come up with a similar plan to defend Smith, throw 2, 3, 4 guys on him, as they have no other threat on offense whatsoever. Now granted, I know the Bears had to deal with an effective Foster as opposed to Goings, ect. But even with that being known, it would not have made a difference. The Bears let Smith walk all over them in the first meeting, the 2nd was embarrasing. Even when it didn't pan out in the very beginning of the game, was there any adjustments made, or even better yet, thought of?? Ricky Proel is not gonna beat you. There is no justification for the Bears loss last week besides being completely unprepared, which matters for nothing right now because Seattle would have whipped us as well. Never would I have thought to see the day to actually agree with Joe Buck on something, but he could not have been more dead on when he was saying the Bears were too "confident and cocky" with their plan on how to defend Smith. Edited January 23, 2006 by watchtower41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 The Bears would've put up a better fight hands down and I'm not even a Bears fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Carolina was doomed probably the week before when they lost foster...but certainly doomed when they lost Goings. How many teams can survive a playoff game with their 4th string running back as their only weapon on the ground? How woudl the Bears have done if they lost Jones, Benson, and Peterson? Remove Parker, Bettis, and Staley from the Steelers? At that point...the Panthers simply had no skill left in the running game, and the guy just slammed into the pile, got 1-2 yards, and left Delhomme on a 3rd and 8 or so. If the Panthers couldn't run...the Seahawks could just drop several people back to double or triple cover Smith, because they didn't need the extra people up front, and their D-line could just go straight for Delhomme. Losing your running game is a recipe for disaster for almost every team, but especially so when you're playing a very good team on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 It did seem like a simple formula. Then again, Delhomme did not look like the same QB as he had in EVERY playoff game before that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 And yes...the Bears plan for the Panthers was absolutely moronic. If you have a pro-bowl corner on your team and you're facing an MVP caliber receiver...they should be matched up every play, and the corner should probably still get help, exactly like the Seahawks did. The Bears also got in trouble though...when their front 7 couldn't stop the run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KWs OK for Me Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Seattle did a whole lot more than simply "throw 2, 3, or 4 guys at Smith." They were able to do something that the Bears were unable to do, get to the QB. Seattle showed a great ability to pressure Delhomme without needing to send a blitz. Their front four was able to constantly collapse the pocket and reduce throwing lanes and get to Delhomme (very similar to what the Bears did the first time they played the Panthers and held them to 3 points). However, I'm not disagreeing that Rivera and Smith should have adjusted their gameplan. I believe that if they had at least tried to bump Smith with a linebacker (most likely Hunter?) and release him to a safety and corner the Bears would not have given up those big plays that killed them so much. If the defense made those adjustments I firmly believe that the game last week would have come down to whoever scored last. Btw, how in the hell did Ed "let me emphatically show a first down in order to show off my arms" Hochuli pick up the flag on that Smith punt return. I just don't get that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssHatSoxFan Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 this game reminded me of the way the bears played the panthers the first time around sans steve smith getting a lot of touches for us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 QUOTE(KWs OK for Me @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:19 PM) Seattle did a whole lot more than simply "throw 2, 3, or 4 guys at Smith." They were able to do something that the Bears were unable to do, get to the QB. Seattle showed a great ability to pressure Delhomme without needing to send a blitz. Their front four was able to constantly collapse the pocket and reduce throwing lanes and get to Delhomme (very similar to what the Bears did the first time they played the Panthers and held them to 3 points). They were at a huge advantage though because they knew full well that the Panthers couldn't run the ball. If their front 4 focused entirely on rushing the passer...because of the lack of any talent remaining at RB for the panthers, they were going to stop the run anyway, so they could focus all their energy on disrupting Delhomme. Stick Foster or even Goings in there and suddenly those linemen have to both be concerned about stopping the run and gettign to the QB, and since you wind up moving in different directions to do those 2 things, the job for a d-lineman becomes far more difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 The Seahawks would've destroyed us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) The Seahawks would've destroyed us. With the way the Bears played against the Panthers...yeah of course. They couldn't stop Goings in that game...why would they be able to stop Alexander? They couldn't get pressure through Carolina's line...are they going to get through the better Seahawks line? The Bears defense from earlier in the year...whatever happened to it...may very well have beaten the crap out of the Seahawks. But the Bears defense that showed up 2 weeks ago would have been destroyed by Seattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchtower41 Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 02:51 PM) They were at a huge advantage though because they knew full well that the Panthers couldn't run the ball. If their front 4 focused entirely on rushing the passer...because of the lack of any talent remaining at RB for the panthers, they were going to stop the run anyway, so they could focus all their energy on disrupting Delhomme. Stick Foster or even Goings in there and suddenly those linemen have to both be concerned about stopping the run and gettign to the QB, and since you wind up moving in different directions to do those 2 things, the job for a d-lineman becomes far more difficult. I agree with what you are saying here, and I kinda look at it as two-fold as well. I saw pretty much the same game plan out of Carolina this week that they used to expose the Bears. The Bears D was not completely effective against Foster because the Panthers came out throwing right away, forcing drop backs in coverage earlier and more often. When Goings took over for Foster, and the game was still somewhat in question, it got even worse because they were still too paranoid about Smith. Perhaps so paranoid, that it was too risky to change a gameplan that they worked 2 weeks on and obviously was working so very well. You'd think the Giants game film would have been more than enough evidence on what not to do to defend the Panthers. Shame on me for thinking the Giants were a much less talented team than the Bears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBatterz Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I am with those who are even more ticked about the Bears loss after seeing what the Seahawks did to the Panthers. Position by position, unit by unit and entire D vs entire D, the Bears are better than Seattle and yet, we looked like a bunch of clowns vs. the Panthers and the Seahawks looked like All-Pros. Frustrating to play the what if game, but at least we have hope for next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin57 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I was surprised, almost shocked, by how "non-competitive" the championship games were. Blow outs, both. The losing teams did not show much in terms of championship quality play in any aspect of their game. 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.