2009-10 Bears Season: Utler, 'Uther 'Uckers

[MAD]

I'll admit that I was dead wrong when I bitterly complained that Lovie was wasting a timeout on the challenge of the Forte fumble.

That said, I still can't believe they overturned it.  It may have been the right call but I don't know how the evidence that was provided supported such a notion (conversely, had the call ont he field been down by contact, I also don't know how it could be overturned).  Plus, as his "hope" challenge finally worked to his advantage, this will only embolden Lovie to recklessly challenge future calls where the empircal evidence would indicate you're a hope-chugging moron to do so.  But hey, it worked yesterday, and probably saved their asses, so I'll shut up now.

And Lance Briggs is one bad ass muthafucker.  He was like Ridgemont High's Jefferson out there.

[Pre]

I'll admit that I was dead wrong when I bitterly complained that Lovie was wasting a timeout on the challenge of the Forte fumble.

That said, I still can't believe they overturned it.  It may have been the right call but I don't know how the evidence that was provided supported such a notion (conversely, had the call ont he field been down by contact, I also don't know how it could be overturned).  Plus, as his "hope" challenge finally worked to his advantage, this will only embolden Lovie to recklessly challenge future calls where the empircal evidence would indicate you're a hope-chugging moron to do so.  But hey, it worked yesterday, and probably saved their asses, so I'll shut up now.

I feel like Lovie's got a better challenge philosophy than most.  He's league average success
wise and he seems to understand that the best time to throw the flag is when a challenge
will have the biggest impact.  There's a lot of coaches that throw the flag for a relatively
meaningless 5 yards here and there (and they aren't right that much more often).  Challenge
when you can make the biggest difference and hope the mercurial NFL refs rule your way.
Worst case you burn a timeout after a big negative play and give your team time to refocus
for the next play.

[Internet Apex]

I'll admit that I was dead wrong when I bitterly complained that Lovie was wasting a timeout on the challenge of the Forte fumble.

That said, I still can't believe they overturned it.  It may have been the right call but I don't know how the evidence that was provided supported such a notion (conversely, had the call ont he field been down by contact, I also don't know how it could be overturned).  Plus, as his "hope" challenge finally worked to his advantage, this will only embolden Lovie to recklessly challenge future calls where the empircal evidence would indicate you're a hope-chugging moron to do so.  But hey, it worked yesterday, and probably saved their asses, so I'll shut up now.

I feel like Lovie's got a better challenge philosophy than most.  He's league average success
wise and he seems to understand that the best time to throw the flag is when a challenge
will have the biggest impact.  There's a lot of coaches that throw the flag for a relatively
meaningless 5 yards here and there (and they aren't right that much more often).  Challenge
when you can make the biggest difference and hope the mercurial NFL refs rule your way.
Worst case you burn a timeout after a big negative play and give your team time to refocus
for the next play.

But this flies in the face of everything that BC, the hoard of meat heads, The Huebiter and every talking neck on the radio has been saying for six years now. Can it be right?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

I'll admit that I was dead wrong when I bitterly complained that Lovie was wasting a timeout on the challenge of the Forte fumble.

That said, I still can't believe they overturned it.  It may have been the right call but I don't know how the evidence that was provided supported such a notion (conversely, had the call ont he field been down by contact, I also don't know how it could be overturned).  Plus, as his "hope" challenge finally worked to his advantage, this will only embolden Lovie to recklessly challenge future calls where the empircal evidence would indicate you're a hope-chugging moron to do so.  But hey, it worked yesterday, and probably saved their asses, so I'll shut up now.

I feel like Lovie's got a better challenge philosophy than most.  He's league average success
wise and he seems to understand that the best time to throw the flag is when a challenge
will have the biggest impact.  There's a lot of coaches that throw the flag for a relatively
meaningless 5 yards here and there (and they aren't right that much more often).  Challenge
when you can make the biggest difference and hope the mercurial NFL refs rule your way.
Worst case you burn a timeout after a big negative play and give your team time to refocus
for the next play.

But this flies in the face of everything that BC, the hoard of meat heads, The Huebiter and every talking neck on the radio has been saying for six years now. Can it be right?

I'm with Pre, at least on this challenge.

It was worth trading one challenge and the possibility of losing a timeout (the latter, in particular, considering the time left in the half) for a solid shot at 7 points instead of a loss of possession, especially given that the challenge was a fairly close call.

[Internet Apex]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

[SKO]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

Honestly, the secondary really doesn't look any better than I feared it would, the linebacker depth has taken a hit, and yet they've only given up 17 ppg. Lovie's doing an outstanding job, and with 6 sacks and the constant pressure the defensive line has applied, I'd have to say Marinelli's been as good as advertised so far. I'd just love this team to get a back up runningback who isn't Garrett Wolfe or Orange Jebus.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

Honestly, the secondary really doesn't look any better than I feared it would, the linebacker depth has taken a hit, and yet they've only given up 17 ppg. Lovie's doing an outstanding job, and with 6 sacks and the constant pressure the defensive line has applied, I'd have to say Marinelli's been as good as advertised so far. I'd just love this team to get a back up runningback who isn't Garrett Wolfe or Orange Jebus.

Apex is going to feed your blood to #29's dreads.

[CubFaninHydePark]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Thanks for repeating yourself...

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6988.msg192607#msg192607

Ready to be told to get fucked again?

[SKO]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Okay...so what you're saying is you'd rather the Bears have 1st and 10 from the 13, because it gives them a chance to get a first down.... if they get 10 yards, but you'd rather they not have a first and goal from the 8, because they then have to get a touchdown by going....8 yards. You are a football sage.

[Quality Start Machine]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

If that's dumb, then having a strategy where you plan on your offense needing 8 downs to go 13 yards against Seattke is submoronic.

[MAD]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

I'm beginning to think that you are an Internet hoax.

[Oleg]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

Okay...so what you're saying is you'd rather the Bears have 1st and 10 from the 13, because it gives them a chance to get a first down.... if they get 10 yards, but you'd rather they not have a first and goal from the 8, because they then have to get a touchdown by going....8 yards. You are a football sage.

To be fair, I used to think the same thing...when I was like 13.  I used to get pissed off when someone would get tackled at the 8 or 9.  I would think, "Couldn't they just take the ball a couple of yards further away so they get a 1st and ten?"  So, there you go.  A 13-year old Oleg agrees with you.

[BC]

I liked the challenge, the timeout there doesn't matter a ton and watching the play live I thought Forte was down... The only negative of that particular challenge is that the Bears would only have had one more challenge if the call were confirmed.

[Waco Kid]

Lovie's doing a good job coaching the D. Marinelli has been good so far. The challenge thing... meh. But Garrett Wolfe? That's my only bitch from yesterday.

My big bitch from yesterday comes from the 3rd and inches call on the series prior to the challenge.

Cutler could've easily got a first down w/ a sneak.  That leaves you 1st and 10 from the 13, with a first and goal possibility inside the 3.  Instead, you throw the quick hit to Olsen for the first, but he catches it at the 10 and realistically doesn't get much, if any further.  So, you have the worst possible first and goal ever.  If you gave me two choices: first and 10 from the 11-15, or first and goal from the 8-10, I'd choose the former every time, since the possibility of another first down makes short-to-medium gains on first and second down worth a lot more.

Had things played out as they did--but with the Bears starting 1st and 10 from the 13, Forte wouldn't have needed to make the retarded "hope" stretch play where every defender around the goal line is looking to strip the ball out of a helpless, stretched out RB's hands.  He would've had the first down, could've gone down without risking the ball, and the Bears would've been in much better position.

I'd also be willing to bet that 80%+ of fumbles inside the 2 come from RB's who have momentum stopped, but are trying to stretch to the goal line.  It's just not a good play unless you're 100% going to make it.

But in the original 3rd and inches play, either get your inches, or get past the seven or eight.  Calling a play that gets you between the 8 and 10 is just dumb.

A good offense with a QB the caliber of Cutler shouldn't have to worry about first and goal from the 8 to the extent of what you are describing here.