About last night... (Rivera)

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

If you say so.

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

The Colts gained 99 yards in the first quarter -- on FIVE possessions. That's more possessions than they usually had in a half this season, and they had them within the first 13:27 of the game. The Colts' first-quarter drives went for 21 yards, 80 yards, minus-7 yards, 3 yards and 2 yards. That's one good drive, mostly because a rookie blew the coverage on third-and-10 to allow a 53-yard touchdown.

And I don't think the Bears' defense tired out or got worn down. They were just as effective late in the game as they were early in the game. The stats just don't look good because the Colts got a whopping 14 possessions and had great field position on most of them. Even an average offense with that many possessions and that kind of field position is usually going to end up with a lot of yards and points.

 

[superpunk]

The Colts gained 99 yards in the first quarter -- on FIVE possessions. That's more possessions than they usually had in a half this season, and they had them within the first 13:27 of the game. The Colts' first-quarter drives went for 21 yards, 80 yards, minus-7 yards, 3 yards and 2 yards. That's one good drive, mostly because a rookie blew the coverage on third-and-10 to allow a 53-yard touchdown.

And I don't think the Bears' defense tired out or got worn down. They were just as effective late in the game as they were early in the game. The stats just don't look good because the Colts got a whopping 14 possessions and had great field position on most of them. Even an average offense with that many possessions and that kind of field position is usually going to end up with a lot of yards and points.

I looked at that first quarter wrong - I counted the one they started at the end of the first in it's entirety for the yardage. That was a 47 yard drive for a field goal. They followed that up with a 58 yarder for a TD. They were letting the Colts push them around from the beginning on. There was no "breaking point", and I agree, no wearing down. They were the same level of poor from the start on. The only saving grace was that they were holding the Colts to FGs.

The offense could have done alot to help them, but after the first quarter fumble-fest, they didn't do much to help the offense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I looked at that first quarter wrong - I counted the one they started at the end of the first in it's entirety for the yardage. That was a 47 yard drive for a field goal. They followed that up with a 58 yarder for a TD. They were letting the Colts push them around from the beginning on. There was no "breaking point", and I agree, no wearing down. They were the same level of poor from the start on. The only saving grace was that they were holding the Colts to FGs.

The offense could have done alot to help them, but after the first quarter fumble-fest, they didn't do much to help the offense.

LOL.........

Interesting that you say they were being pushed around from the start. Adam just stated that this was not the case.

I do not agree with Adam that they didn't ware down but that's here nor there. The offense didn't help the defense. They gave up way too many short fields and the result was predictable for any defense on any team. They lost.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

LOL.........

Interesting that you say they were being pushed around from the start. Adam just stated that this was not the case.

I do not agree with Adam that they didn't ware down but that's here nor there. The offense didn't help the defense. They gave up way too many short fields and the result was predictable for any defense on any team. They lost.

isn't it possible that they didn't wear down, just being on the field for too long opens you up to giving up more plays? as Adam's stats show, the Colts had to use alot of time and chances to do not that much

 

[Common Sense]

The Colts gained 99 yards in the first quarter -- on FIVE possessions. That's more possessions than they usually had in a half this season, and they had them within the first 13:27 of the game. The Colts' first-quarter drives went for 21 yards, 80 yards, minus-7 yards, 3 yards and 2 yards. That's one good drive, mostly because a rookie blew the coverage on third-and-10 to allow a 53-yard touchdown.

And I don't think the Bears' defense tired out or got worn down. They were just as effective late in the game as they were early in the game. The stats just don't look good because the Colts got a whopping 14 possessions and had great field position on most of them. Even an average offense with that many possessions and that kind of field position is usually going to end up with a lot of yards and points.

This is the Adam Zone. Seriously. You own this forum.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

isn't it possible that they didn't wear down, just being on the field for too long opens you up to giving up more plays? as Adam's stats show, the Colts had to use alot of time and chances to do not that much

Sure.

For me, I think if you give any team enough shots, your eventually going to get beaten. I look at the tackling, the way the Colts were able to sustain drives in the 2nd and 3rd quarters and the Bears ability to get there with there pass rush. The Colts had success running Addai up the gut all game but if you look at the first quarter possesions, The short passing game and Addai up the middle was really all they had success with. They had one pass for 14 yards and the blown coverage of like 58 and that was pretty much it. As you start looking at the 2nd and 3rd quarters, the tackling gets worse, and the pass rush starts falling off. The longer patterns start to materialize. In the 2nd quarter, Manning completes passes of 15, 22, 17, and 10 as well as 7 and 8 yard patterns. In the 3rd quarter, you start seeing Addai able to run off tackle with success. No of that in the 1st quarter. The defense is starting to weaken IMO. You also see Rhodes, who is not a quick as Addai start to have good success running the ball in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. That too tells me that the defense is starting to wear down.

In the 4th quarter, you start seeing Chicago have success on offense because, IMO, Indy is playing to protect here. The Indy offense is not on the field as much but when they are, Chicago's defense really didn't stop them. Penalties on the offense had more to do with ending drives, IMO, then did the Chicago defense. At that point, they were just tired. In the 1st possesion of the 4th quarter for Indy, you have a penalty on the offense and a dropped ball by Harrison the he really should have caught. That's a 1st down if he catches it. This is the play where he gets his leg bent back. Understand why he dropped it.

Then, Grossman throws a pick 6 so the offense doesn't come on again. Grossman again throws a pick on the next series the Bears defense immediatly give up a 12 yard run off tackle. An incomplete by Manning, a sack and a 2 yard run by Indy. End of possesion.

Bears run 8 plays and turn the ball over.

Indy then runs 8 straight run plays for Rhodes. There trying to kill the clock. If you look at the 4th quarter, I don't think the Bears defense did as much to stop Indy as much as the Colts were calling plays to shorten the game. JMO of course.

 

[superpunk]

LOL.........

Interesting that you say they were being pushed around from the start. Adam just stated that this was not the case.

I do not agree with Adam that they didn't ware down but that's here nor there. The offense didn't help the defense. They gave up way too many short fields and the result was predictable for any defense on any team. They lost.

They allowed 100 yards in the first quarter. They allowed 430 for the game. Simple math tells us they were getting pushed around from the start. There's nothing funny or "interesting" about it. It's just the way it is.

 

[Pats Fan]

I have no vested interest. So that being said:

Hello defense, the run is killing you. No adjustment. No second quarter adjustment.

Now, was that the DC, or the head coach.

Not sure, I was not there. Who knows???

I would not get too excited about this guy. Just my opinion.

Finding the right guy is tough. I still think you would have been better off with Parcells, warts and all.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

They allowed 100 yards in the first quarter. They allowed 430 for the game. Simple math tells us they were getting pushed around from the start. There's nothing funny or "interesting" about it. It's just the way it is.

I do not expect you to admit you are wrong. Simple math actually says that if you have 5 drives in 1 quarter, of which, you have one drive that produces 80 yards (58 on one busted play), you've given up less then 20 yards on the other 4 drives. Less then 5 yards per possesion in 4 drives. That should tell you that the Bears defense was not getting "pushed around from the start".

However, as it is you, I will not force this on you. I will simply tell you once again that if this is what you choose to believe, then please do so.