About last night... (Rivera)

[superpunk]

Rex had 2 INTs and 1 lost fumble.

Another bonehead drive was the fumbled snap and falling down after a 2nd and 1 creating a 3 and out.

So 3 turnovers, and 1 implosion resulting in a 3 and out.


How can you expect the Bears defense to do anything more? They created TOs and held the Colts to 22 points.

I know how many times Rex turned it over. THAT is not what you said.

The Bears defense could have played ALOT better last night. Two three and outs all evening? 430 yards? 200 yards rushing? I think you could expect alot more from what was supposed to be the strength of this team.

 

[superpunk]

I don't know Punk. I honestly thought the Bears did a pretty good job for the first half. I just thought there inability to stop the run up the middle and the passes to the backs mounted. You just can't leave your guys in those situations time after time with an offense like Indy's. I just think it's a tough road to hoe if your saying your going to stop Indy all game long without the support of you offense protecting the ball or your field position. I don't know of anybody or any coaching staff who could have done that against that team.

It troubled me that they didn't even try to change. To play that defense you need great play out of your front four, especially against Peyton. They didn't get that last night. So what did they do? Keep running the same thing, and over and over again, the Colts would clear out deep, wait for the void between the linemen and LBs to expand, and dump off. And the Bears showed no ability to stop the run. Instead of the run-blitzing and trying to put more pressure on Peyton, they stayed in the Cover 2.

Run with what brung ya, I guess.

 

[smarta5150]

I know how many times Rex turned it over. THAT is not what you said.

The Bears defense could have played ALOT better last night. Two three and outs all evening? 430 yards? 200 yards rushing? I think you could expect alot more from what was supposed to be the strength of this team.

I did say THAT... "Everytime the Bears got a takeaway Rex just gave it right back to Manning." - from my original post. :

 

[superpunk]

I did say THAT... "Everytime the Bears got a takeaway Rex just gave it right back to Manning." - from my original post. :

How many times, AFTER the Bears forced a turnover, did Grossman give it right back to Manning?

 

[JPM]

cosigned. I'm "leaning" towards him. But that may just be the gravitational pull.

I think you find him cuddly, like a teddy bear.
But the more I think about the more I like Philips, he can teach Bowles his brand of the 3-4 and Garrett can mentor Romo and be OC.

 

[trickblue]

So we are judging Rivera based on one game against the best offense in the NFL?

One game? What about Turner's seasons of ineptitude?

The Bears have a great defense. They wouldn't have reached the SB without it.

No... well at least I'm certainly not...

I was NOT judging them on last night, but rather deferring to those that know the Bears better than I do...

 

[superpunk]

No... well at least I'm certainly not...

I was NOT judging them on last night, but rather deferring to those that know better...

The trouble is, what Ron Rivera are we getting?

Are we getting Jim Johnson inspired Rivera? Was he really just running Lovie's scheme and coaching 'em up? If so, let's roll with that guy. We can handle being a defense like Philly.

Are we getting Lovie inspired Rivera? If so, boo. We don't have the players. You can't run that defense without a fantastic front four and crazy athletic LBs. You just can't.

 

[trickblue]

The trouble is, what Ron Rivera are we getting?

Are we getting Jim Johnson inspired Rivera? Was he really just running Lovie's scheme and coaching 'em up? If so, let's roll with that guy. We can handle being a defense like Philly.

Are we getting Lovie inspired Rivera? If so, boo. We don't have the players. You can't run that defense without a fantastic front four and crazy athletic LBs. You just can't.

From what I understand, although it is Lovie's defense, Rivera calls all of the plays...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It troubled me that they didn't even try to change. To play that defense you need great play out of your front four, especially against Peyton. They didn't get that last night. So what did they do? Keep running the same thing, and over and over again, the Colts would clear out deep, wait for the void between the linemen and LBs to expand, and dump off. And the Bears showed no ability to stop the run. Instead of the run-blitzing and trying to put more pressure on Peyton, they stayed in the Cover 2.

Run with what brung ya, I guess.

Why would they go away from it? It was working. The Colts didn't run wild on that Bears defense. Take away the TOs from the Bears offense and there's really no need to go away from it. Once your defense is on the field for as long as the Bears defense was, it doesn't really matter what you change to. Your going to be tired in whatever scheme. The Bears weren't balanced last night and that's why they lost IMO. It's going to look bad on the defense but in reality, I think you look at what they were doing and you have to say that they were succesful in limiting the Colts offensively. They just couldn't do it all by themselves. I don't think it was a matter of adjustments. I think it was a matter of getting worn down.

 

[superpunk]

Why would they go away from it? It was working. The Colts didn't run wild on that Bears defense. Take away the TOs from the Bears offense and there's really no need to go away from it. Once your defense is on the field for as long as the Bears defense was, it doesn't really matter what you change to. Your going to be tired in whatever scheme. The Bears weren't balanced last night and that's why they lost IMO. It's going to look bad on the defense but in reality, I think you look at what they were doing and you have to say that they were succesful in limiting the Colts offensively. They just couldn't do it all by themselves. I don't think it was a matter of adjustments. I think it was a matter of getting worn down.

I have no idea how you can say it was working? They got run all over. They forced only two three and outs, and that was early. They got no pass rush. They allowed chunks of yardage. What exactly was working? They weren't allowing TDs. But the Colts were perfectly content just controlling the clock and putting the ball in Grossman's hands, and the offensive playcalling was happy to oblige (foolishly).

Keep in mind, I'm not damning Rivera here, I'm just talking specifically about last night - and by extension, how they finished out the year.

 

[Sasquatch]

I did find the Bears' inability to stop the short pass to the running back eerily familiar.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The score was 14-16, at half. That's a game. By the end of the 3rd quarter, the score is 22-17. That's a one score ball game. If your offense does anything, you have a chance to win that game. You can not ask for anything more then that as a player, coach or owner. The Bears defense did there job. The offense scored 10 points. 7 of those points came on a short field created by good defensive play. The offense accounted for 2 INTs, 4 Fumbles and several negative drives that created bad field position for the defense. 11 first downs. Only three rushing. 265 total yards. 154 yards passing, 111 rushing, of which half came on one long run. I don't know how you can't understand what I'm saying. To me, it's pretty easy to see what happened. I guess everybody sees things different but I suspect that when the final chapter is written on this Super Bowl, the offense will take the brunt of the responsability.

 

[superpunk]

The score was 14-16, at half. That's a game. By the end of the 3rd quarter, the score is 22-17. That's a one score ball game. If your offense does anything, you have a chance to win that game. You can not ask for anything more then that as a player, coach or owner. The Bears defense did there job. The offense scored 10 points. 7 of those points came on a short field created by good defensive play. The offense accounted for 2 INTs, 4 Fumbles and several negative drives that created bad field position for the defense. 11 first downs. Only three rushing. 265 total yards. 154 yards passing, 111 rushing, of which half came on one long run. I don't know how you can't understand what I'm saying. To me, it's pretty easy to see what happened. I guess everybody sees things different but I suspect that when the final chapter is written on this Super Bowl, the offense will take the brunt of the responsability.

It's pretty easy to see the Bears were so inept on defense that they never gave the offense a chance, however inept it may have been. Both units played poorly last night. Absolving one at the expense of the other doesn't make sense. It was joint suckitude. If the Bears defense, which was allegedly their strength, had played up to par, maybe their offense gets mroe chances. If their offense wasn't so bad, maybe the defense isn't under so much pressure. There was no point in thta game where you might even think about saying "This is a dominant defense." It was a bad defense, and it was a bad offense. The score was 22-17 because Hester returned a kickoff and the BEars capitalized on a turnover. Otherwise it's not so respectable.

Joint suckitude.

 

[percyhoward]

Bears were 13-1 vs NFC teams, and 2-3 vs AFC teams

Saints were 10-4 vs the NFC, and 1-3 vs. the AFC

Eagles' records were identical to the Saints'.

The NFC's top 3 teams were 33-9 vs the NFC, and 4-9 vs the AFC.

 

[peplaw06]

It's pretty easy to see the Bears were so inept on defense that they never gave the offense a chance, however inept it may have been. Both units played poorly last night. Absolving one at the expense of the other doesn't make sense. It was joint suckitude. If the Bears defense, which was allegedly their strength, had played up to par, maybe their offense gets mroe chances. If their offense wasn't so bad, maybe the defense isn't under so much pressure. There was no point in thta game where you might even think about saying "This is a dominant defense." It was a bad defense, and it was a bad offense. The score was 22-17 because Hester returned a kickoff and the BEars capitalized on a turnover. Otherwise it's not so respectable.

Joint suckitude.

Think you got it backwards there. When the game was said and done, the first thought in my mind was Grossman and the Bears O was terrible and never gave the D a chance.

You can't expect much more from a defense that is on the field for 80 plays and almost 40 minutes. And why is that? Because of 5 turnovers and 5 first downs through 3 quarters.

The Bears as you say got two 3-and-outs, which looks bad, but those were at the beginning of the game when they were still fresh. And it's not exactly easy to get the Colts offense off the field. By the time the Bears had their 3rd turnover, the TOP was so tilted in the Colts favor, the Bears defense was done.

And say what you will about the Bears failure to get Indy's offense off the field, but also look at how many 3 and outs the Bears offense had. There's no question in my mind the offense was mostly to blame.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's pretty easy to see the Bears were so inept on defense that they never gave the offense a chance, however inept it may have been. Both units played poorly last night. Absolving one at the expense of the other doesn't make sense. It was joint suckitude. If the Bears defense, which was allegedly their strength, had played up to par, maybe their offense gets mroe chances. If their offense wasn't so bad, maybe the defense isn't under so much pressure. There was no point in thta game where you might even think about saying "This is a dominant defense." It was a bad defense, and it was a bad offense. The score was 22-17 because Hester returned a kickoff and the BEars capitalized on a turnover. Otherwise it's not so respectable.

Joint suckitude.

OK, show me one team in the history of the Super Bowl that turned the ball over 5 times and was able to win the game. Show me one defense in the history of this game that looked to be a dominating defense with that many TOs. Show me one team in the history of this game that gave up 5 TOs and held the opposition to 29 points.

 

[superpunk]

You can't expect much more from a defense that is on the field for 80 plays and almost 40 minutes. And why is that? Because of 5 turnovers and 5 first downs through 3 quarters.

Why were they on the field for 80 plays?

Because they couldn't get the Colts off the field.

Am I the only one that sees this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills or something....

Who cares about the Bears? Both sides of the ball got outplayed and outcoached for their team last night. Not on one side or the other exclusively. If the offense has more opportunities, and doesn't have to sit on the bench for nearly an hour, maybe they're more productive. The units are intertwined like that, and they were both bad.

 

[superpunk]

OK, show me one team in the history of the Super Bowl that turned the ball over 5 times and was able to win the game. Show me one defense in the history of this game that looked to be a dominating defense with that many TOs. Show me one team in the history of this game that gave up 5 TOs and held the opposition to 29 points.

Why would you set up a strawman of an unprovable point, asking for data that doesn't exist, and that is also irrelevant, to support your point?

Nothing you requested has anything to do with how well or poorly Chicago's defense played last night.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why would you set up a strawman of an unprovable point, asking for data that doesn't exist, and that is also irrelevant, to support your point?

Nothing you requested has anything to do with how well or poorly Chicago's defense played last night.

So are you saying that no defense, no matter how good they were, has ever looked good with an offense that played so horribly in the history of the game?

It's a team game. You can't just say that it's the fault of the defense when the offense is doing nothing to assist. You may not like, or even agree with the point I'm making but it doesn't mean that it's not relivant. It is a valid point and it does speak to the defensive performance of Chicago's performance last night. I'm sorry, but the question is valid. Answer or no but it doesn't change the fact that had the Offense shown up for Chicago, this could have been a very different game. The defense, IMO, did not play poorly last night. They were simply put in a position to fail and that's exactly what happened.

 

[peplaw06]

Why were they on the field for 80 plays?

Because they couldn't get the Colts off the field.

Am I the only one that sees this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills or something....

Who cares about the Bears? Both sides of the ball got outplayed and outcoached for their team last night. Not on one side or the other exclusively. If the offense has more opportunities, and doesn't have to sit on the bench for nearly an hour, maybe they're more productive. The units are intertwined like that, and they were both bad.

Chicago's offense didn't have one drive that lasted more than 2:22 on the play clock... not one. And that 2:22 drive was their next to last for the game when they turned it over on downs. Their longest drive in number of plays was 8, and that was the same drive.

Other than that, they had 6 plays on the FG drive where they got the ball on the Colts 40... they went 14 yards. In fact, of the Bears first 8 offensive possessions, they never ran more than 4 plays, and only one possession netted more than 10 yards... and in that possession they got 57, 50 of which was on the Jones long run.