To start this thread off I have listed below the WRs of relevance for the teams in the beloved "Black and Blue" NFC North. I have put them in order of relevance to their team for 2008 according to my opinion. I know this may be controversial so feel free to rip apart my take but be sure to give reasoning and not just be a jerk.
Da Team: Mark Bradley. The single most important factor on the corps. If he can stay healthy, play consistetly like he's capable of and like the flashes we've seen he will be our #1 WR. Hey that sounds like someone else on this team.
Marty Booker. Good signing by the team. Safe signing. Great team guy who wants to be here, has big hands and can mentor the young guys. Hey lets hope he can still play at a high level too.
Devin Hester. I'm really only putting him here because of his athletic ability. If he can play WR like he does KR or PR, look out. He needs more development and with experience and reps will come more consistency.
Earl Bennett. Nobody knows what this guy will turn out to be but he should be a factor in the offense. They compare him to Hines Ward and if he's half the player Hines is I'll be satisfied. I want to see this guy in preseason....badly.
Rashied Davis. I dont know how much playing time he'll get this year with the drafting of Bennett and increased workload for Hester but he's got talent. He finds lanes and gets open. He's a good solid backup.
Brandon Lloyd: Who the hell knows. If he plays to his capability he could be a good safety net but it wouldn't shock me if he's cut. Then again it wouldn't shock me if he turns out to be our #2 or #3 WR either.
The rest. This includes Monk, Hass and the bevy of other guys trying out. Who knows.
The Queens.
Berrian. I look forward to him dropping balls for someone else. He's a speedster and the Queens #1 threat but that doesnt worry me. Fans in MN are way too excited about this guy.
Sidney Rice. Up and coming, good speed, should be a bonafide #1 or #2 in this league soon.
Bobby Wade. Another former Bear living the low life in MN. Safe backup, has flashes.
Aundrae Allison. Young up and comer. Dont know much about him except that he's a backup WR in MN, not a great place to advance your career with Tjack at the helm.
Robert Ferguson. What is with these former NFC north players flocking to MN.
The Fudge Pack.
Donald Driver. Good player, probably the best WR in the NFC north. Tough call between him and Roy Williams. Makes all the plays a #1 WR should. Pro bowl caliber.
Greg Jennings. This will be his second or third year in the league and he's a stud. He's pretty much a lock to be a pro bowler at some point. He could be #1 in GB very soon.
James Jones. Seen him torch teams a few times, looks pretty good. Just another solid WR in the Pack organizatinon.
Ruvell Martin. Third or fourth guy. Doesnt scare any teams but puts up decent numbers when he gets to play. Trust me I know. He had a couple of good fantasy weeks when Driver was hurt.
Your Motor City Kitties.
Roy Williams. A staple NFC North WR. Good player. Annoys me with his 1st down signals but he makes plays and thats what counts. Also talks a lot. I'm not a big fan of this guy but he's consistent.
Calvin Johnson. Didn't show what he's capable of last year but he will this year. If he emerges like he's supposed to he's going to be a #1 calibler WR and perennial pro bowler. I need to see it yet.
Mike Furrey. Probably the best #3 or slot WR in the NFL. And I mean that. He's the best safety net in football. This guy racks up catches but with the dismissal of Martz who knows what this teams passing game will look like in 2008. Supposedly they are going to run more, pass less.
Shaun McDonald. Been with the team a few years. Good fill in guy. Capable of having a #1 type game.
Upon review of talent of the players alone my ranking of the Teams is this: #1 Pack, #2 Detroit, #3 Bears, #4 Vikings. As far as stats go the Bears could be higher, even as high as #1 if Rodgers doesnt work out in GB, and we certainly cant expect him to put up the same numbers for his WRs as Favre did. The Lions could fall too. With Martz's pass happy offense out they could see significantly decreased numbers as well in the WR dept. The Vikes thought that they had moved up to #1 or #2 in this category with the signing of Berrian but I'm not buying it. They need a QB to throw the ball first. Things could align and the Bears could look like #1 team.
Take it away.....
#2 Smitty said . . .Detroit is #1. Roy and CJ make quite the pair. I'd put the Bears at #2 bc i'm an idiot and I'm biased and I think that those guys will all do well. #3 I'd put Minne because I like sidney rice and b-twice on that fast track up there...not much after that. GB #4...Driver is on the decline, the other guys just don't impress me too much. The strength of that offense is that line.
May 30, 2008
#3 Pissed Off said . . .Mark Bradley as the #1 is so scary. What did he do last year to get buried on the depth chart? I don't understand. Lets run the ball, play great D and throw short passes to our tight ends.
Bears equal 9-7.
May 30, 2008
#4 Duff Diggler said . . .Interesting numbers,
Donald Driver and Greg Jennings combined numbers: 135 catches, 1968 yds, 14TDs.
Calvin Johnson and Roy Williams: 112 catches, 1594 yds, 9TDs.
I think both of those have huge potential to drop off. GB due to Favre not being around and Detroit due to Martz leaving and a pass less offense coming into play.
I checked Bears and MN numbers but I dont know which 2 WRs to list and the Bears numbers were just too depressing.
May 30, 2008
#5 animal said . . .I'm Bias.
They are like the equivalent of this years' Lakers in that they are young, athletic, talented, they have depth, and are somewhat unknown.....
...I think our WR corps has a tremendous upside.....
....the book is out on BB, Driver, Williams, etc.....
Bradley, Hester, the squirrel, the miracle monk, hass, the wild card Lloyd, and even Davis have not had the opportunity to show what they can do....
all are role players, all have special skills, our depth is goin to confuse everyone. WRs (besides block) have two main jobs....
1. Catch
2. Run (in that order...)The success of these guys rests on two main factors....
1. The distance between RT's head and his ass....
2. The distance between Rex/Kyle's heads and their asses........NOT TO MENTION OLSEN (breakout year) AND CLARK!!!!!!!
I think it is way too soon to predict, so i'll go....
1. Da Bears
2. Lions (too many 1st rounders to pick someone else)
3. Pack (i agree with Driver on the decline, Jennings good, i need to see more, but i hope i don't)
4. Vikes (all of this is more of a 3 way tie for 2nd, but how could I go with T-Jax?)May 30, 2008
#6 mikebdot said . . .Detroit is #1. I was ready to type it and saw JB beat me to the punch, but oh well. Come on- Roy Williams, Calvin Johnson, and catch machine Furry. I'd flip to have any one of those guys on the Bears.
GB is #2, but my selective memory keeps replaying Charles Tillman punching balls out of their hands (James Jones) for fumbles. Bitch ass.
Minny is #3. We have nobody, they have our best WR.
Bears last... it kills me to write this.
I pray they prove me wrong.May 30, 2008
#7 mikebdot said . . .I think everything on offense goes back to the O-line. In '06 Rex was sacked maybe 25 times or so. Last year the Bears gave up over 50 sacks I think. That's unacceptable. Hopefully, these new young receivers can come in and give Grossman/Orton a place to deliver the football before getting hit in the backfield. I always wonder how frequently Moose and Berrian left our QBs hanging out to dry by not recognizing a blitz, etc.
I like the fact that we have new blood at the position, but it's a lot of it and it makes me very anxious to see the preseason.
Also, is there anyone out there that looked at our performance in the preseason last season and thought "wow, we should go 13-3 again"? I don't care if they give me that feeling and then dash my hopes, but I don't want the "ugh, we're going to be mediocre this year" feeling.
May 30, 2008
#8 jonathan said . . .*Correction* I was wrong, we were sacked 43 times last season vs. 25 in '06. I said 50. Whoops. Still, we got worse. Obviously, it's not all o-line (CB can take some blame, obviously, though, TJ wasn't as good as you all think in that regard, he hardly ever stayed in to block), but hopefully the new guys we have drafted will step up and not need help from our RBs.
And yes, all of that is at best partially related to WR. My point is that the receivers need to help out the QB in situations where they don't have time. This can be done by making plays when the opportunity presents itself. This instills confidence from the QB and puts teams on their heals because their blitzing isn't working. The WRs have to do their part recognizing what the D is doing. This is what makes me concerned about DH. Seeing what is going on with STs isn't nearly as hard. The players are already spread out and you know where they're going . On offense, you have to figure it out.
May 30, 2008
#9 mikebdot said . . .mike -- how does the 43 sacks compare to other teams? I'm sure it's still ridiculously high, but I'd be curious to know if another team had a similarly piss-poor O-line and lots of sacks, yet somehow managed to put up better numbers for their QB/WRs.
May 30, 2008
#10 craig said . . .jonathon: Well, I know Detroit was sacked a lot and had many more yards. I think a better statistics is probably sacks per dropback. I'd have to do some digging on that one though.
May 30, 2008
#11 mikebdot said . . .DET, GB, MIN, CHI.
Here's hoping some of our guys break out and prove me wrong...
May 30, 2008
#12 mikebdot said . . .Jonathon: Here is some interesting info:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pDYemUZJNH0aDrI8yv5RoXw
There aren't many data points out of whack besides maybe Pittsburgh and Jacksonville. The teams near the top in sack rate were very good passing teams overall. The Saints, Bengals and even the Cardinals specifically. I don't think 10 out of the 11 ten+ game winners showing up in the top 18 teams is a coincidence.
Anyhow, regardless of what PO'd might say, these data matter. Sack % and yards lost on sacks are a big deal. That's another data point I could add at a later date (total yards lost). If you get sacked and lose 2 yards like Peyton Manning routinely does it's far easier to pick up the first down anyway on a 2nd and 12 or 3rd and 8-10 (assuming 1st down gained some yardage).
Sacks kill drives. Penalties kill drives. It's about time our coaching staff put a stop to stupid penalties and coached the receivers to get open, especially on obviously blitzes. The fact that we can't execute a quick slant or a screen during a blitz is pathetic. It's starts at the O-line and trickles down. Hopefully the TE position will alleviate some more of that need as well.
May 30, 2008
#13 Rancid said . . .I also just noticed that all 8 of the 10+ loss teams are in the bottom 14 spots.
May 30, 2008
#14 jonathan said . . .This has to be the most unknown position in the Division. Everyone has a major change of some kind.
1. Green Bay loses Favre
2. Detroit ditches the Martz offense
3. Minny picks up BB, have QB issues
4. Da Bears improve the line, will have an entire new starting slate of WRs, and have QB issues.There is just no way to predict what will happen. So fan bias takes over . . .
1. Bears
2. Detroit
3. Green Bay
4. Minny - FU BBMay 30, 2008
#15 Al In WI said . . .mike -- excellent info. i'd also second the point that dumb penalties kill us. it seems like we had a lot more last season than in the previous couple.
May 30, 2008
#16 mikebdot said . . .Mark Bradley is already hurt and not taking part in mini camp because of yet another knee surgery. While this doesn't mark his 3rd reconstruction yet, it does go to show that counting on him is foolish. I agree he has loads of physical ability but so what? He was never even a big time player in college and has only had a game or two in the NFL that he's done anything. And oh yeah he's been hurt all the time.
Marty Booker is our #1 reciever at this point. My hope is that out of Lloyd and Hester one of them can emerge as the big play Willie Gault to Booker's McKinnon.
I'd like to see Lloyd step up into that role as he's actually done something in the NFL and that would allow Hester to stay a gimmick. And focus on his return work.May 30, 2008
#17 said . . .jonathon: We were actually one of the most highly penalized teams in '06 as well. That started with the O-line. We are not a disciplined football team. It's not just one guy either.
May 30, 2008
#18 shonbear said . . .1. I think Favre MADE Jennings and Driver. I think they look much more mediocre catching passes from Rogers.
2. I think everyone wants to cut down Berrian because he skipped town on us, but the fact is he is speedy, he's been progressing each year, and he's a legit #1. Like everybody else, I still question TJack, but c'mon, you watched the games last year: Berrian is legit.
3. Why is everyone making a big deal about Bradley getting his knee cleaned out? It's routine stuff. It's not season ending.
4. Who is Haas and are there any believers out there in Haas? Every once in a while you'll hear from someone who knows about Haas from his college days and swears the guy just needs a chance.
5. If you're a WR, can't you learn to handle physical play from opposing CBs, isn't that something that can be taught? My understanding is the Lloyd is pretty fast and has great hands, catches everything in sight, but teams figured out that if you just get physical with him he fades away. Isn't this something he can work through the way rookie running backs learn to pick up the blitz? And if he does that, what's stopping him from being our number 1?
6. I love Marty. I'm glad Marty is back. But Marty is not a No. 1 at this point in his career. He's a better version of Moose than Moose was last year. But we need somebody (Hester? Bradley?) to step up to be the legit No. 1.
Bottom line, it's all about stepping up. Can anyone sieze the opportunity.
Right now, I agree with those who have said:
1. Detroit - stacked at WR, a great strength for them.
2. Green Bay - but it's not a close second; I agree with the poster who said it's really a three-way tie for distant second.
3. Minnesota
4. Bears - as has been said, prove me wrong.May 31, 2008
#19 said . . .While smoking crack I decided to get one last Reuben comment in. I guess the thing is that he was a part of our GREAT O-line during the years preceding and getting to the Superbowl, it's hard to let that go and what happened last year with our line, the penalties, etc... only one year out seems ao premature. Metcalf is lame, most agree, but Lovie seems so positive about him. Is it a money thing?
Alright I promise to leave the RB thing alone from now on, but I hope the best for him no matter where he goes.
On to the Reicevers. True I want to bag on Berrian for leaving, but for that money anybody would have been stupid not to leave. I do believe he had great numbers here and had he not dropped so many last year, along with Moose too (which they seem to always credit to our QB's), I'm thinking we win at least two games that were lost.
To me those dropped passes showed me that he wasn't hungry to fight for those catches watching interceptions in front of his face. Now that he has the money, and a QB with less talent than what he left, I think he will drop off. The "X" factor of course is AP who could potentially make Tavarias look good and open up that play action pass, so back to a healthy Mike Brown punching him in the mouth and taking some fumbles and interceptions out of the deal.
The potential is there for our receivers to come out on top of this battle, but for now there are too many unknowns.
Can't give it too Detroit, new offense, regardless of the great receivers.
Can't give it to Green Bay, new QB, plus the media frenzy with every loss will be "do you think if Brett was here..."
Here's my shot with the "potential" bias view:
1. Chicago
2. Minnesota
3. Green Bay
4. DetroitIf that "X" factor plays out, it will be Minnesota on top.
Green Bay and Detroit I think could be interchangable.
Injuries throughout the NFC North might determine some things we all could never predict.
When does fantasy start, can I get in with somebody's league this year???
May 31, 2008
#20 shonbear said . . .regarding depth at o-line, that's why I think we need to sign Olivea. He could be the long-term answer to replace Tait on RT and add depth in the meantime. How is this guy not on somebody's team?
May 31, 2008
#21 Viva said . . .Olivea sounds great, what's wrong, why'd San Diego release him.
May 31, 2008
#22 Nicole is no longer miserable in the blue city said . . .Cliff Stein had a busy night - Kellen Davis (TE) was signed, and then each of the Bears five 7th rounders were signed. http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2008/05/bears_bag_five_more_draft_pick.html
May 31, 2008
#23 shonbear said . . .It's a sign! On my flight out of Indy last night, I sat next to Bears fans en route to my new home in SC. Gotta love the displaced fans. :)
June 1, 2008
#24 animal said . . .so far the defense is looking good in practice, six interceptions. I think the defense has a chip on their shoulder after last season. They are out to prove they are the best. I think they are going to be on fire against the colts. one to smash them in the mouth as payback for the superbowl, two to take their home game away from their new fancy stadium and three to show the NFL world that last year was an anomoly.
Let's get some pads on them and see the same stuff. In addition, I'm not concerned about the offense sturggling against our defense because I think it's good for them to have to face such a good defense in practice, it better prepares them for other NFL teams with defenses not as good.
I think so far there is good indication that Devin Hester will be looking pretty good receiving.
I'm so excited for training camp, preaseason and game one in indy. Let's get it going. July 23rd can't come soon enough. Let's Bear down and stay healthy guys.
On another rant note:
What's up with Ron Turner and the posibility of coming up with some plays that puts Benson and Forte both in the back field at the same time getting all our best players on the field more often (That is if Forte pans out to be a playmaker, they should know by then), whether they are protecting the QB, running a screen, running play action or actually running the ball. What ever happended to these kinds of plays, not just one or two, but enough to really throw a defense off, not knowing what we are going to do and keep Hester in there so he won't be an afterthought.
A little more than a month and a half, let's go!!!
June 1, 2008
#25 jdawg said . . .Pissed off is a faggot who gargled my nuts. He sucks like our wide recievers.
June 1, 2008
#26 Megan said . . .gargled your nuts?
Man, you must have some low-hanging nuts.
June 1, 2008
#27 animal said . . .Nice.
That's just what I would expect from somebody who calls themselves "animal"
Your statements are so shocking and original-really get my panties in a bundle over your provacative innuendo. (said in "Eyore" tone. I.e. sarcasm)June 1, 2008
#28 Megan said . . .That wasnt me. I thought we quit the fake name posts. Someone is bored with this thread and trying to start shit. Either way I dont give a fuck, so whatever.
June 1, 2008
#29 jeff said . . .My apologies, animal. I got suckered in.. you and PO'd were sparing.. so sorry.
June 2, 2008
#30 animal said . . .stopping in for a hello. hey nicole, i'll be in sc in october.
June 2, 2008
#31 Pissed Off said . . .no prob.
where is mike these days?June 2, 2008
#32 Pissed Off said . . .mikeb, when exactly did I say certain data did or did not matter? I dont remember saying anything about sack %.
June 2, 2008
#33 mikebdot said . . .And regarding the "fake" animal post I dont give a fuck either. If someone posted under my name and dissed animal I would admit if it wasnt me but I wouldn't give a shit either.
Nice to know that even when i havent been to the blog in three days I still have an effect on people that they put shit in about me. I love knowing I have that long lasting effect. Maybe next offseason I'll take a month off completely and see how many posts still reference me. Some losers have nothing else but to hang onto something I've said that gets to them even days later.
And regarding Mike, i think he was exposed as Jeff mentioned in a post a couple months ago. He was like a young kid or something and got busted? I dont know exactly but according to Jeff he wont be back.
June 2, 2008
#34 Pissed Off said . . .PO'd: I was refering to post #61 from this thread:
http://www.dabearsblog.com/2008/01/8_simple_rules_for_being_champions.php
Taking a sack in critical situation is almost as bad as an interception. Taking 11 sacks in two games you claimed he was actually better than normal is not evidence of playing better, even if he didn't make terrible decisions throwing the football. Collectively, losing 200 yards in sacks is just as bad as throwing 6 or 7 interceptions, in my estimation. Throwing an INT 15 yards downfield is like losing 30 yards or so on a sack.
Anyway, I found more data to support my overall conclusion and thought I'd open it up for discussion again. Sloppy-route running and not working for your QB to get open can have serious impacts on the number of sacks taken by a QB.
June 2, 2008
#35 Pissed Off said . . .I'm not really going to get into it and I'm not really sure what the total discussion entailed back then or what relevance it has on this conversation which is supposed to be about WRs but I would agree that taking sacks is not good. The severity of that compared to throwing an INT is up for debate but I think throwing an INT is bad too. I dont know which is worse or has a worse impact. I tend to think that throwing an INT is far worse cuz it flat out turns the ball over. I will still stand by the fact that late in the year Rex threw the ball away a lot when he could have taken a sack. A lot more than he did in previous years.
June 2, 2008
#36 mikebdot said . . .This is an opinion topic right? Nothing factual here. You think taking a 30 yard sack (which is about impossible) is equal to throwing a 15 yard INT. Does that take into account any INT return yards? And your opinion is that taking 200 yards in sacks is like throwing 6 or 7 INTs. I think there is a lot of room for error with this assumption. How many sacks ( or loss of downs) did it take to get to the 200 yards lost? How many yards were lost on that particular sack? What was the down? What was the yardage to go before and after the sack? I'll admit I'm intrigued by this debate but its making my head hurt. A lot of that pain has to do with all the variables I listed above and also other items such as protection of the QB and how hard WRs work to get ball. And can you post this data to support your conclusion? Is there a formula of some sort?
June 2, 2008
#37 mikebdot said . . .PO'd: I just made it up (that 200 yards is sacks is roughly equivalent to 6 or 7 INTs). I guessed the average INT is a net "gain" (or "punt") of about 15 yards, including return yards. I would say average INT length is 20+ and average return is 5+. I have no idea, just pulling numbers for the sake of discussion. I did not really consider down, but a turnover is always a turnover. A sack is only a sure loss of the ball on third down (usually). But if you lose 5+ yards on 2nd down, probably greater than a 50/50 shot of having to punt.
So, anyway, I said, ok, a punt is on average 40-45 yards (in thinking more, it's actually less with return, probably average of 30-35 net), so if you throw an INT that is returned to the point of about 5-10 yards in front of the line of scrimmage, it's roughly equivalent to a 30 yard sack. 200/30 = 6.6666. It's probably actually more like 20 or 25 yards difference on average...
I have no idea if those averages are even close. I also understand that an INT can be returned for a TD, but a sack can result in a fumble returned for a TD too. I would guess INT returned for a TD happens more often, but I have no idea. Not quite sure how frequently a fumble happens on sacks and the resulting play be a turnover. I would guess all those caveats sort of wash out.
And yes, this topic doesn't really relate to WR, with the small tie-in that new WRs will be a completely different dynamic throughout a regular series of plays regarding how much time the QB has to deliver the ball due to route running or working to find the seams in a zone D or finding the guy that is blitzing and reading the play accordingly. Same with actually going up to fight for the ball on a possible INT. If they are more apt to fight for it, you might be more willing as a QB to throw it up for grabs to the guy with single coverage, rather than take a sack.
June 2, 2008
#38 Pissed Off said . . .In thinking a bit more about this, 3 sacks together would be about a loss of 15 or 20 yards total. That alone is pretty close to an interception since that is literally a potential series of plays.
I really just found it incredible that the data correlated so well. Almost all of the 10+ win teams and the teams that had a good passing game were in the top. And vice versa (with the exception of Pittsburgh, which can be chalked up to a QB throwing very few passes up for grabs and a very high completion %. Big Ben had 32 TDs and 11 INTs with a 65% comp %. ).
June 2, 2008
#39 mikebdot said . . .Nice research dude.
June 2, 2008
#40 Matt said . . .When I get bored I will look at other years as well for sack % vs. wins. What other info would be useful to look at?
What other statistics besides turnover margin would be interesting to try to correlate with number of wins? It seems like a good team will put up good numbers regardless of statistic, so perhaps it's a causal relationship the other way. i.e. maybe it's just that good teams dominate most statistics.
I don't completely disagree that Grossman was slightly better later in the season, but he still has things to work on and hopefully a new receiving corps will help him work out the kinks in his game, giving him the confidence he needs to take the reigns of the offense, like he did in early '06. And if Orton wins the job, the same can be said for him. They're going to need help, and if the receivers don't step up, I think it's safe to say we're screwed regardless of who starts.
June 2, 2008
#41 animal said . . .From what I have seen of the minicamp so far, it looks like Rex has been working on his foot work. He looks a lot quicker when dropping back. I really hope he has been working on this during the off season. I'm no coach, but it appears he is taking about half the time to drop back and get set to throw than it has taken him in the past. Good sign!
June 3, 2008
#42 animal said . . .the difference is, you are not taking into account field position. Sacks may lead to punts. INTs provide a larger advantage for the opposition, preventing a score in the red zone or giving good field position.
And PO still sucks nuts, regardless of who posts it.June 3, 2008
#43 mikebdot said . . .This Orton talk is fucking crazy. You cannot be serious. We have all seen both play and Rex is so clearly the more talented QB that it is not even close. Orton can't hit the broad side of the barn with half his passes, and the other half he throws 10 feet over the receiver's head. Rex has many many faults but he is still the best QB on the roster.
Im surprised idiots like PO who clamor to sign every free agent aren't calling for us to sign Travis Henry.
That dipshit is a combination of Rashaan Salaam (pot head) and Enis/Benson (lack of heart, desire).
Two years ago we went to the big show mainly with guys we drafted and developed. There is no silver bullet in FA. Fuck Faneca and Turner. We need our own players to step up a la 2006.
Bear down.June 3, 2008
#44 Pissed Off said . . .animal: Yes, I am taking into account field position. If you get sacked at the 35 yard line it made it much more difficult to kick a field goal as well. It also prevents a scoring opportunity. If you take 4 sacks over the course of 2 drives, it could kill them both (thus preventing a TD or FG). Taking a sack at your own 10 is also terrible for a field position battle type game (like, say, the Giants game).
Oh, speaking of which, 3rd and 11 on the Chicago 14 (beginning of 2nd quarter). Grossman takes a 13 yard sack. We punt the ball to the Chicago 32. Hmmm, sounds a lot like an INT that was returned to the 32, eh? Needless to say, they tied the score. Also, quick note about Lovie Smith's ability to throw the challenge flag: It sucks ass!
Did you know we had 10 penalties for 71 yards that game? Grossman let the clock run down forcing himself into that 3rd and 11 and then the sack.
Also, on the very next drive, Grossman takes a sack on 3rd down. Then on the very next drive, Eli Manning gets sacked on 1st down, fumbles the ball, and it leads to a field goal.
Sacks are a big deal. I would think 1 in 3 sacks can have just as much impact as an INT.
Good receivers make an impact in this regard. Reading coverages, reading blitzes, finding spots in the zones, all these little things matter almost as much as "can he catch the football"? Mostly because the question "can he catch the ball in traffic?" becomes a moot point if there is no traffic in the area. It also makes the decision to actually unload the football a much easier one for a QB.
June 3, 2008
#45 jeff said . . .Animal why dont you stop the name calling already, grow up, your like a two year old, your exposing yourself as the child you are. I feel bad for you and your parents.
Matt, have you been going to training camp? Are you from the Chicago area? If you've seen clips of training camp I'd appreciate if you'd post them. You say Rex is quicker with his footwork, I'd like to see it if you have a link.
I'm not clamoring for us to sign any RB now that we've drafted a good guy. Henry is intrigueing to me but I think we're good where we are now after drafting Forte. But assuming that there's never anything good available in free agency is just assinine.
June 3, 2008
#46 JB said . . .let's get another post going, boys.
June 3, 2008
phil....go
June 3, 2008
Here at DaBearsBlog, you are free to kill us or the Bears as you so wish. You are not free, however, to be an asshole. So if you spew racism or ill-meaning foul language (cursing about football is just fine) or anything of that ilk, your comments ain't gonna last long, jerk.