chw42 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:16 PM) I couldn't disagree more. What scheme change are you talking about? The realization that it helps your offensive line if you run the ball more? What I have seen is a pattern. When teams are able to slow down the Bears running game, the Bears get forced into 3rd and longs, and then the blitzes come, and Cutler panics. When the Bears are able to run the ball effectively, they keep 2nd and 3rd down manageable, the downs are not so clearly passing downs or passing plays that take a long time to develop, and our offense is able to function and sometimes even flourish, because they do have some talent. But I haven't seen a whole lot that shows that some major shift has been made in terms of a game plan or a philosophy, other than trying to commit to the running game more. We have seen the collapses as late as in the New England game and the game last week against the Packers. What happened to our scheme then? They ran the ball a lot less last week against Green Bay. I think the ratio was like 40 to 20 or something along those lines. Forte ran the ball very well too. I don't know what Martz was really trying to do. The key to the Bears' success on offense is definitely the running game. If you look at Forte's numbers since the bye, they look a lot better: Before bye: 90 attempts, 352 yards, 3.9 yards/attempt, 12.9 attempts/game. If you were to take away Forte's 22 rush 166 yard game against Carolina, he'd be averaging 2.7 yards per carry and 11 carries per game. That's absolutely atrocious. After bye: 147 attempts, 717 yards, 4.9 yards/attempt, 16.3 attempts/game. Forte only had one really bad game since the bye and that was against New England. The increase in Forte's effectiveness could be affected by a couple of things, but most notably, it could mean better run blocking and a healthier Forte (I haven't seen him run this well since his rookie year). Of course, it also doesn't hurt that he is getting the ball more every game. So if Seattle was actually good at stopping the run, which they are not, I'd be concerned. Right now, I'm feeling pretty good about next Sunday. Edited January 10, 2011 by chw42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPN366 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:42 PM) So if Seattle was actually good at stopping the run, which they are not, I'd be concerned. Right now, I'm feeling pretty good about next Sunday. Yeah, that's what got the Saints. They didn't run enough, Seattle was only rushing 3 and dropping everybody else into coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:44 PM) Yeah, that's what got the Saints. They didn't run enough, Seattle was only rushing 3 and dropping everybody else into coverage. They really didn't have the weapons to run either. Ivory and Thomas going on IR really hurt them. Julius Jones and Reggie Bush aren't the best running backs around. Edited January 10, 2011 by chw42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:42 PM) They ran the ball a lot less last week against Green Bay. I think the ratio was like 40 to 20 or something along those lines. Forte ran the ball very well too. I don't know what Martz was really trying to do. The key to the Bears' success on offense is definitely the running game. If you look at Forte's numbers since the bye, they look a lot better: Before bye: 90 attempts, 352 yards, 3.9 yards/attempt, 12.9 attempts/game. If you were to take away Forte's 22 rush 166 yard game against Carolina, he'd be averaging 2.7 yards per carry and 11 carries per game. That's absolutely atrocious. After bye: 147 attempts, 717 yards, 4.9 yards/attempt, 16.3 attempts/game. Forte only had one really bad game since the bye and that was against New England. So if Seattle was actually good at stopping the run, which they are not, I'd be concerned. Right now, I'm feeling pretty good about next Sunday. Hey, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I hope we kick their ass too. But it seems to me you're trying to say we can just run the ball against them and we'll win. It's just not anywhere near that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Garza coming back + Williams moving inside to G really helped. Williams has been a pretty decent run blocker from what I've seen and Garza's always been good at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPN366 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:46 PM) They really didn't have the weapons to run either. Ivory and Thomas going on IR really hurt them. Julius Jones and Reggie Bush aren't the best running backs around. I guess Jones didn't know enough secrets about Seattle's defense to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:48 PM) Hey, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I hope we kick their ass too. But it seems to me you're trying to say we can just run the ball against them and we'll win. It's just not anywhere near that simple. If they run the ball well, of course they'll have a good chance to win. Then you'll have to lock it down in other areas too obviously. But offensively, if they can get enough pressure off of Cutler and make the Seahawks guess on defense, I think this offense will do their part. We've all seen what Jay Cutler can do when he is given time and that's what a good running game can give Cutler. I'm not saying I'm not even going to watch the game and just call it a win or anything. I'm just saying the Bears should have a really good chance to win against the Seahawks. Edited January 10, 2011 by chw42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:52 PM) If they run the ball well, of course they'll have a good chance to win. Then you'll have to lock it down in other areas too obviously. But offensively, if they can get enough pressure off of Cutler and make the Seahawks guess on defense, I think this offense will do their part. We've all seen what Jay Cutler can do when he is given time and that's what a good running game can give Cutler. I'm not saying I'm not even going to watch the game and just call it a win or anything. I'm just saying the Bears should have a really good chance to win against the Seahawks. Did you break down the Saints/Seahawks game too? Because I'd love to see your thoughts on that prior to the game too... I agree, they should beat the Seahawks. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Matt Hasselbeck was borderline the worst starting QB in the NFL this season. I obviously recognize that he played phenomenally this weekend but let's not go too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 01:53 AM) Matt Hasselbeck was borderline the worst starting QB in the NFL this season. I obviously recognize that he played phenomenally this weekend but let's not go too far. Agreed. I think people are forgetting that the Seahawks offense has to play against the Bears defense. I have confidence in the Bears against Seattle even if the offense doesn't light it up. There's no way Seattle puts up 40 points again, that's a given. And Marshawn Lynch and the Seahawks running game has been horrible all year. I'm not going to let 1 amazing 67 yard run scare me. Not to mention I'll put the Bears special teams up against about anybody in the NFL. The Bears SHOULD handle the Seahawks, especially at home, but this is the NFL. Anything can happen. And for whoever cited the 40 passes to 20 runs stat against GB is citing a totally flawed argument. Mike Martz called an absolutely terrible game. Forte was running extremely well and then he got super-duper pass happy with 7 step drops and with the Packers blitzing EVERY single down. Up until about 1/2 way through the 3rd (guesstimation) the offense was balanced and moving the ball. Seriously, what NFL OC doesn't adjust to blitzes every down? Call a draw play. Set up a screen. Throw quick slants. It was horribly frustrating watching him force 7 step drops knowing that 6 or more Packers were coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:51 PM) I guess Jones didn't know enough secrets about Seattle's defense to help. 15 carries for 59 yards (3.9 yards per rush) 6 receptions for 61 yards 2 touchdowns. I would say he helped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 11:42 PM) They ran the ball a lot less last week against Green Bay. I think the ratio was like 40 to 20 or something along those lines. Forte ran the ball very well too. I don't know what Martz was really trying to do. At least I can give an excuse...most of those passes came on the last 2 drives, when the Packers pinned the Bears inside the 10 twice with a touchdown lead in the 4th quarter. Running the ball was only going to be a diversion and a use of time that the Bears really didn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 So if you are a Packers fan and you beat the Falcons, don't you have to root for the Bears on Sunday? Do you really want to have to win in Qwest Field to get to the Super Bowl? I think I'd much rather play at the nearby divisional rival, where I may be more comfortable playing, then at that madhouse in the Pacific Northwest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 07:28 AM) So if you are a Packers fan and you beat the Falcons, don't you have to root for the Bears on Sunday? Do you really want to have to win in Qwest Field to get to the Super Bowl? I think I'd much rather play at the nearby divisional rival, where I may be more comfortable playing, then at that madhouse in the Pacific Northwest. I'm sure if they beat the Falcons Saturday they will cheer on Seattle. They may argue that the Bears suck, but I would think they would rather play Seattle at Qwest than the Bears in Soldier Field. Bears are 10 point favorites Sunday. SeaChickens getting no love from the oddsmakers away from Qwest, and suddenly the Bears getting some respect from Vegas. Bears were 6.5 point favorites the first time around in October... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 08:55 AM) I'm sure if they beat the Falcons Saturday they will cheer on Seattle. They may argue that the Bears suck, but I would think they would rather play Seattle at Qwest than the Bears in Soldier Field. Bears are 10 point favorites Sunday. SeaChickens getting no love from the oddsmakers away from Qwest, and suddenly the Bears getting some respect from Vegas. Bears were 6.5 point favorites the first time around in October... Considering the Saints got 10 points on the road, it isn't really a lot of love to give the Bears 10 points at home. Frankly, I'm as nervous about this game as any. It rides on whether Cutler can be good enough and not turn the ball over. Doesn't matter who they play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (G&T @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) Considering the Saints got 10 points on the road, it isn't really a lot of love to give the Bears 10 points at home. Frankly, I'm as nervous about this game as any. It rides on whether Cutler can be good enough and not turn the ball over. Doesn't matter who they play. I think it'll get bet down. The Saints were giving 10-11 points, meaning the oddsmakers thought they were close to 2 td's better than Seattle (home field advantage is usually about 3 points for the home team). The Bears are giving 10 points as well, meaning the oddsmakers are saying the Bears are about a td better. I guess it makes sense. They certainly aren't putting a whole lot on the Seahawks being able to make a repeat performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 :headbang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I love when my team is in the playoffs and all, but the Packers need to start winning some games by like 20 points. Otherwise I might not make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Not to overlook Seattle because I do think they will battle us all game long (hopefully I'm wrong and it's a Bears laugher) but I hope the Pack beat Atlanta...rather face the Packers in Soldier Field than go to Atlanta. Da Bears!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev211 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) Not to overlook Seattle because I do think they will battle us all game long (hopefully I'm wrong and it's a Bears laugher) but I hope the Pack beat Atlanta...rather face the Packers in Soldier Field than go to Atlanta. Da Bears!!! I also believe the Pack at home would be easier then Atlanta in Atlanta, but that's enough looking ahead for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxsoxsoxsox Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) Not to overlook Seattle because I do think they will battle us all game long (hopefully I'm wrong and it's a Bears laugher) but I hope the Pack beat Atlanta...rather face the Packers in Soldier Field than go to Atlanta. Da Bears!!! definitely would be an epic game if we played the pack at home with the winner going on to the super bowl. for some reason I think the packers are finally gonna run out of gas against the Falcons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chi Town Sox Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 12:34 PM) definitely would be an epic game if we played the pack at home with the winner going on to the super bowl. for some reason I think the packers are finally gonna run out of gas against the Falcons. I thought the same thing until James Starks ran for 123 yards, now they have a running game if he can keep it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) for some reason I think the packers are finally gonna run out of gas against the Falcons. The Packers have had to give 100%, especially on defense, for 3 weeks now (starting with that Patriots game) to recover from the egg they laid against the Lions. Your scenario is certainly plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Seahawks 12th Man Creates Measurable Seismic Tremor? With every yard Seahawks running back Marshawn Lynch gained, Qwest Field got louder. But by the time his 67-yard, eight tackle breaking scamper in Saturday's playoff game against the New Orleans Saints was over, the 12th man was rocking. And apparently so was the earth below the stadium. The Pacific Northwest Seismic Network recorded a small tremor at exactly 4:43 p.m. Saturday afternoon from an old monitoring system near where the Kingdome used to stand. That time is almost exactly when Lynch broke what turned out to be the game-deciding touchdown run in the 4th quarter, sealing the improbably win by the Seahawks. And while Qwest Field is famous nationwide for it's crowd noise, PNSN scientists think their readings show that was the first recorded 12th man tremor, ever. After all, the "quake" was recorded only at that single SoDo station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 As someone who doesn't really follow the Bears, the Bears/Seahawks game is easily the lamest matchup of the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts