Week 17: Packers @ Bears - for the season

[patryk7754]

That **** fumble play. ****.

yeah i wonder if that play alone should cut anderson.

Why? He had a very solid season

[patryk7754]

Just saw a replay on the 4th and 8 play. First i thought Tucker didn't have any coverage back there but the replay showed Conte going to the flat and Bowman was suppose to go deep. It makes sense as a scheme because the first look is going to be short which was coverage. If Bowman didn't hesitate it looked like he would have gotten to Cobb in time to cover him.

[CBS7]

That **** fumble play. ****.

yeah i wonder if that play alone should cut anderson.

Cut someone for one play? Should we cut the other 10 guys that didn't go for the ball too?

[bearadonisdna]

That **** fumble play. ****.

yeah i wonder if that play alone should cut anderson.

Cut someone for one play? Should we cut the other 10 guys that didn't go for the ball too?

anderson had the ball in his hands . it should have been 7 the other way. He dropped it and it was immediately picked up by a packer. At that point the packers have already gained on the play and perhaps in disbelief of what transpired with anderson disregarding the ball before a whistle.

[patryk7754]

yeah i wonder if that play alone should cut anderson.

Cut someone for one play? Should we cut the other 10 guys that didn't go for the ball too?

anderson had the ball in his hands . it should have been 7 the other way. He dropped it and it was immediately picked up by a packer. At that point the packers have already gained on the play and perhaps in disbelief of what transpired with anderson disregarding the ball before a whistle.

No one on the field thought it was a live ball. If it wasn't the sideline no one would have thought to run to the end zone. Rodgers should be cut to since he should have known he fumbled the ball but didn't pick it up

[blumeany]

Anderson was not good this year. He was a big part of why this defense was so god awful.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[blumeany]

I think, at the end of the day, the Bears failed in familiar fashion. Given two opportunities to keep the Packers out(Philly game and this game), they blew it both times.

But hey, if they weren't going to make it all the way anyway, better that they go out this way - motivated for next year than come in next year with warped expectations.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[mj234eva]

Also, on Kuhn's 4th down conversion, the play clock read 00. Isn't that a delay of game? Should have been 4th and 6.

The play clock does not display tents of a second. I think even when it's at 0, the team has .9 seconds to snap it.

Do the refs just count that last second in their head then? Seems silly.

Don't know if this was answered but what they do is this:

Ref looks at the clock, it's zero. He then looks to see if the ball is snapped, if it hasn't been, it's a delay of game. If the ball has been snapped, no flag. Typically, there's about an extra second the offense will get once the clock hits zero.

[micromonkey]

I think not going for it on 4th and 17 at 45 was a mistake--I texted my brother when I saw they were punting. I don't care if you make it--it's worth going for it. If you don't convert and give them a shorter field you have more time to score again when you get ball back. If you convert you are at least in FG range--extend the drive. Or at least make them potentially blow a timeout rushing to snap or doing a stupid hard count. Podlesh was so bad in any case I was almost expecting him to boom it to the end zone--but he kept at his game average (low 30s')

I don't think going for it would be a wild "Raiders era Shanahan" type call. Aggressive but your D can't stop anyone and you know they will go for it--so you have to play knowing just that they will play desperate.

The days of kicking it when you are past the 50 and hoping your defense holds--those numbers can't be very good in the modern NFL especially with a piss poor defense and everything on the line. This ain't 1970 anymore. Sure it was a miracle play and busted coverage--but I put the odds of our defense having 1 busted coverage in 10 plays higher than our ability to convert a 4th down. 10-15% change we convert, probably a 10% chance per play we have broke coverage--10 plays = almost 100% chance.

If we are gonna say Thibs issue is mins mgmt I really get the sense that Trestman is way, way too conservative. 2nd down FG try still stings.

I think Belichik does something--he doesn't sit on it and punt--just a weak call IMO. Not the biggest issue with the game but part of over conservatism that I hope we don't see next year. But hey I always say go for it on 4th--maybe I"m a wild man