About last night... (Rivera)

[Paniolo22]

Bears made it to the SB with Rex as QB...

Enough said...

That would equate to us making the Super Bowl with Quincy Carter at QB.

 

[blindzebra]

3 things really hurt the Bears defense:

1. The KO return for a TD...it put INDY in catch-up mode, and began the TOP disadvantage.

2. The long run and TD...the offense scored, but did so quickly, which added to the time the defense was on the field.

3. The two times the defense gave the offense the ball, only to have them give it right back...that was a back breaker.

With all of that it's a game until Grossman throws the pick 6...this is as laughable as those that were blaming the Dallas defense when we lost games 17-10 or 14-13...the Bears woeful offense cost them this SB.

 

[Paniolo22]

3 things really hurt the Bears defense:

1. The KO return for a TD...it put INDY in catch-up mode, and began the TOP disadvantage.

2. The long run and TD...the offense scored, but did so quickly, which added to the time the defense was on the field.

3. The two times the defense gave the offense the ball, only to have them give it right back...that was a back breaker.

With all of that it's a game until Grossman throws the pick 6...this is as laughable as those that were blaming the Dallas defense when we lost games 17-10 or 14-13...the Bears woeful offense cost them this SB.

I agree with all of your points, but the Bears inability to stop the short HB pass eerily reminded me of ourselves, and 3rd down from the 2nd qtr on was just an absolute nightmare, and it didn't seem to matter what the distance was.

 

[superpunk]

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.

If you want to make excuses for how poorly they played, and how much they failed, I guess that's as good as any. I guess I just can't see any rationale for watching that game, seeing that defense get pushed around, give up over 400 yards and nearly 200 on the ground, and saying that they did a good job. At all. They failed just as much as the offense.

The only difference is, I expected the offense to fail. I didn't see such a monumental failure coming from that defense.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I agree with all of your points, but the Bears inability to stop the short HB pass eerily reminded me of ourselves, and 3rd down from the 2nd qtr on was just an absolute nightmare, and it didn't seem to matter what the distance was.

I agree with his points.

About your takes I will say three things.

1. No matter how the colts offense has played this season or in the playoffs prior to the Superbowl. They have had the ability to light a team up with their offense. So it is not really too shocking IMO.

2. In a heavy rain it is usually an offense that plays better in the passing game. Why? Because the WRs know where they are going...DBs have to react to the WRs and it is probably harder to do so in the rain or on a slick field...although to be fair I did not see many players sliding around much.

3. Just compare the players in the skill position on offense for the Colts and the Bears. Is there one player in a skill position on the bears that would be considered better than his counterpart on the Colts?
I would think the only players that may come close in comparison would be the RBs for the bears but one of them got hurt.
Plus make no mistake Grossman is not even as good as Dilfer. He is about the opposite IMO. He is a QB that wants to take risks down the field but just is not that good where Dilfer was a QB that was more of "bus driver" guy.

Either way the bears defense just did not play well...they were missing tackles left and right. But the other things should be taken into consideration and when your offense is not staying on the field it is hard to keep leaving it up to the defense that is missing one of their best players in T.Harris.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Fellas, the Colts were just a better team.

Doesnt matter now, but personally, I think if the NFCCG was played in Nawlins, I think the Saints go marching on.

The NFC has been absolutely horrible for years and this year it was almost worst then in 2004, when our terrible Cowboys team still had a shot late in the Season to get into the Playoffs because the Conference was so putrid.

The Bears were exposed for what they are, an average team, with a weak Quarterback that got to play a Seattle team with Loan Officers and Tour Guides in their secondary and New Orleans at Soldier Field in the Snow.

I dont think this game should prevent Ron Rivera from getting an interview. I will say this though, someone in this thread mentioned that Jerry should ask him about his love for the Cover-2. Roy Williams, Pat Watkins and Keith Davis in the Cover-2 = 2 TDs per game.

- Mike G.

 

[blindzebra]

I agree with his points.

About your takes I will say three things.

1. No matter how the colts offense has played this season or in the playoffs prior to the Superbowl. They have had the ability to light a team up with their offense. So it is not really too shocking IMO.

2. In a heavy rain it is usually an offense that plays better in the passing game. Why? Because the WRs know where they are going...DBs have to react to the WRs and it is probably harder to do so in the rain or on a slick field...although to be fair I did not see many players sliding around much.

3. Just compare the players in the skill position on offense for the Colts and the Bears. Is there one player in a skill position on the bears that would be considered better than his counterpart on the Colts?
I would think the only players that may come close in comparison would be the RBs for the bears but one of them got hurt.
Plus make no mistake Grossman is not even as good as Dilfer. He is about the opposite IMO. He is a QB that wants to take risks down the field but just is not that good where Dilfer was a QB that was more of "bus driver" guy.

Either way the bears defense just did not play well...they were missing tackles left and right. But the other things should be taken into consideration and when your offense is not staying on the field it is hard to keep leaving it up to the defense that is missing one of their best players in T.Harris.

Two of their best players...they are without the heart and soul of their secondary too, and most of the missed tackles were in the secondary...just look how the Colts D looked with Saunders and without him, not having Brown was huge for the Bears.

 

[sbark]

Bears made it to the SB with Rex as QB...

Enough said...

Reflection of the Bears, or the NFC as a whole?

 

[peplaw06]

3 things really hurt the Bears defense:

1. The KO return for a TD...it put INDY in catch-up mode, and began the TOP disadvantage.

2. The long run and TD...the offense scored, but did so quickly, which added to the time the defense was on the field.

3. The two times the defense gave the offense the ball, only to have them give it right back...that was a back breaker.

With all of that it's a game until Grossman throws the pick 6...this is as laughable as those that were blaming the Dallas defense when we lost games 17-10 or 14-13...the Bears woeful offense cost them this SB.

I understand how you can say indirectly the first two things hurt the Bears D, but my only thing with that is it helped them as well.

The offense could do nothing all night. A kickoff return, long run by Jones and a 15 yard penalty on a squib kick contributed to ALL of the Bears points. If they don't have the first two of your points up there, we're looking at a shutout. If the offense gets shutout there's no way the Bears' D looks even close to respectable today. Those 2 plays were nothing but POSITIVE for the OFFENSE.

Those plays, while they may have hurt indirectly, were the only reasons the Bears were in the game to begin with.

Number 3 is perfect. There's nothing more demoralizing to a defense than to come off the field on the emotional high of just creating a turnover, only to have to return to the field on the next play because of the ineptitude of your offence.

 

[DC Cowboy]

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.

7 of those came on an INT return for a TD

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If you want to make excuses for how poorly they played, and how much they failed, I guess that's as good as any. I guess I just can't see any rationale for watching that game, seeing that defense get pushed around, give up over 400 yards and nearly 200 on the ground, and saying that they did a good job. At all. They failed just as much as the offense.

The only difference is, I expected the offense to fail. I didn't see such a monumental failure coming from that defense.

If it pleases you to believe this. By all means. Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

 

[superpunk]

If it pleases you to believe this. By all means. Everybody is entitled to an opinion.

There's nothing to believe. It is, in actuality, what happened last night.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

butttt............Rivera is "Young and Hungry"............

can't beat old and sucky (Norv Turner)

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There's nothing to believe. It is, in actuality, what happened last night.

That's your opinion and you are entitled. It does not appear to be the prevailing opinion at this point.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion but it is only yours. Do not confuse that point.

 

[superpunk]

That's your opinion and you are entitled. It does not appear to be the prevailing opinion at this point.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion but it is only yours. Do not confuse that point.

What I said, in that post, was not an opinion. It is what happened. There can be any number of excuses for it, but 430 yards and 200 rushing yards is not an opinion. That's domination.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What I said, in that post, was not an opinion. It is what happened. There can be any number of excuses for it, but 430 yards and 200 rushing yards is not an opinion. That's domination.

If I tied you up, beat you about the head till you bled, would that mean that I would have beaten the crap out of you?

Of course not. Because you were tied up, you would have been unable to defend yourself. This is very much what happened to the Bears defense. The Colts are a very good offense in there own right. Because they had so many opportunities to hurt the Bears defense, it is inevitable that the Bears defense gets beaten. That's the simple fact of the matter.

The Colts ran 29 plays on 6 different drives in the first quarter. That's and average of just over 4.8 plays per drive. Break that down further and that's 123.5 yards per drive. The Bears defense was on the field all but 5:44 of the entire first quarter.

In the 2nd Quarter, the Colts ran 19 plays in three drives. That's an average of just over 6 plays a drive. They gave up an average of 36 yards per drive in the second quarter or 5.68 yards a play. By the time the 2nd quarter was over, the Bears defense had 48 plays run against them while the Bears offense had managed only 19 in 9 seperate drive opportunities. That's an average of 2.11 plays per drive. Think about that for just a second. By the end of the 2nd quarter, the Bears defense had been on the field for all but 10:04 seconds of the entire first half.

In the 3rd quarter, the Colts ran 25 plays against the Bears defensive unit in 3 seperate drives. That's an average of 8.33 plays per drive. They gained 136 yards on those 25 plays or, 45.3 yards per drive, 5.44 yards per play. Bears defense was on the field for 10:55 of the third quarter. That's 31:31 seconds of a possible 45:00 minutes played.

By the time the 4th quarter rolls around, this game was over. The Bears defense was done. However, you can see quarter to quarter that the Bears defense was strong early but faded the longer they were on the field.

You can say that they gave up 400 yards or whatever but the facts are that the Colts had way too many opportunities on the Bears defense. It was not a matter of the Bears not being able to get the Colts offense off the field. It was a matter of the Bears Offense not being able to stay on the field. This is clearly illustrated in the above break down by quarter.

As I said, your opinion is just that, your opinion.

 

[superpunk]

If I tied you up, beat you about the head till you bled, would that mean that I would have beaten the crap out of you?

Of course not. Because you were tied up, you would have been unable to defend yourself. This is very much what happened to the Bears defense. The Colts are a very good offense in there own right. Because they had so many opportunities to hurt the Bears defense, it is inevitable that the Bears defense gets beaten. That's the simple fact of the matter.

The Colts ran 29 plays on 6 different drives in the first quarter. That's and average of just over 4.8 plays per drive. Break that down further and that's 123.5 yards per drive. The Bears defense was on the field all but 5:44 of the entire first quarter.

In the 2nd Quarter, the Colts ran 19 plays in three drives. That's an average of just over 6 plays a drive. They gave up an average of 36 yards per drive in the second quarter or 5.68 yards a play. By the time the 2nd quarter was over, the Bears defense had 48 plays run against them while the Bears offense had managed only 19 in 9 seperate drive opportunities. That's an average of 2.11 plays per drive. Think about that for just a second. By the end of the 2nd quarter, the Bears defense had been on the field for all but 10:04 seconds of the entire first half.

In the 3rd quarter, the Colts ran 25 plays against the Bears defensive unit in 3 seperate drives. That's an average of 8.33 plays per drive. They gained 136 yards on those 25 plays or, 45.3 yards per drive, 5.44 yards per play. Bears defense was on the field for 10:55 of the third quarter. That's 31:31 seconds of a possible 45:00 minutes played.

By the time the 4th quarter rolls around, this game was over. The Bears defense was done. However, you can see quarter to quarter that the Bears defense was strong early but faded the longer they were on the field.

You can say that they gave up 400 yards or whatever but the facts are that the Colts had way too many opportunities on the Bears defense. It was not a matter of the Bears not being able to get the Colts offense off the field. It was a matter of the Bears Offense not being able to stay on the field. This is clearly illustrated in the above break down by quarter.

As I said, your opinion is just that, your opinion.

That stance is ridiculous. It's just a one-sided excuse. Yes - the Bears offense was bad. That goes without saying. But that's no excuse for the Bears not being able to get the Colts off the field from the word go. It's not like they were holding them, holding them, holding them.....and then everything fell apart because they were tired. They were getting trashed from the start. Unless they were fatigued from having two weeks off, excusing their poor play just because they were on the field so much is a cop-out.

They stunk from the time they took the field onward. There was no wearing down. They got dominated at the LOS, and refused to adjust their scheme which the players weren't executing. That's not the offense's fault. The offense has been inconsistent all year. The defense started their fade in December, and kept on til' the super bowl, where they got beat up and down the field by the Colts.

Their defense let them down every bit as much as Grossman and their offense. The offense wasn't tying the defense up - the defense did that to themselves.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

That stance is ridiculous. It's just a one-sided excuse. Yes - the Bears offense was bad. That goes without saying. But that's no excuse for the Bears not being able to get the Colts off the field from the word go. It's not like they were holding them, holding them, holding them.....and then everything fell apart because they were tired. They were getting trashed from the start. Unless they were fatigued from having two weeks off, excusing their poor play just because they were on the field so much is a cop-out.

They stunk from the time they took the field onward. There was no wearing down. They got dominated at the LOS, and refused to adjust their scheme which the players weren't executing. That's not the offense's fault. The offense has been inconsistent all year. The defense started their fade in December, and kept on til' the super bowl, where they got beat up and down the field by the Colts.

Their defense let them down every bit as much as Grossman and their offense.

Do you realize the bears had 14 points in the first quarter...and 7 of those were the kickoff return for a TD.

Do you know how much the scored after that. ONE FG.

When one teams defense is on the field a FULL quarter plus minutes longer than the opposing team.

It is going to cause problems.

It is not the whole reason why, but anyone that says it is not a good part of the problem needs to rethink their stance.

Plus they did not have have Tommy Harris.

Now as I said before that does not excuse the missed tackles but to act like it is nothing...is not really fair.

 

[superpunk]

Do you realize the bears had 14 points in the first quarter...and 7 of those were the kickoff return for a TD.

Do you know how much the scored after that. ONE FG.

When one teams defense is on the field a FULL quarter plus minutes longer than the opposing team.

It is going to cause problems.

It is not the whole reason why, but anyone that says it is not a good part of the problem needs to rethink their stance.

Plus they did not have have Tommy Harris.

Now as I said before that does not excuse the missed tackles but to act like it is nothing...is not really fair.

If they had played well, even for a spell, I could buy that they got worn down.

They stopped the Colts for two three and outs in the first quarter - they also allowed close to 150 yards in that quarter, I believe. They got pushed around from the opening snap on - so where did the wearing down come from?

Late, that was part of the problem. The offense strung them out, gave them no help at all. That doesn't excuse how pitiful they played from the start.

 

[Sasquatch]

When one teams defense is on the field a FULL quarter plus minutes longer than the opposing team.

It is going to cause problems.

Why is it that defenses tire out but not the offenses that are on the field for just as long?