PoHarry, you know your stuff and state it well. Hope you stick around on the board regardless on Sunday's result.
quote:Originally posted by Rusty:quote:Originally posted by Satori:quote:Originally posted by Scott Catron:
Why is this tool allowed to post?
Its Tool Variety Week at X4, a unique opportunity to view tools from outside Packer Nation
Cow Sills
quote:Originally posted by oldnavy:
I said after that game something that concerned me and still does. Cutler got great experience in running a late game drive against a team that was backed into a corner. Yeah, it failed in the end, but the experience he gained is invaluable.
You're assuming he learned from that. Too many stories of him since he came into the league where he either doesn't want to or can't learn.
quote:Originally posted by gbIdaho:
I tend to give credence to Deep Chicago's first post in this thread. Though, it is curious as to why would Martz and company open more of the playbook in Week 17? Playing it safe logic seems to say you would not show the Packers (or playoff teams) any new options in store.
Why? You expose Cutler because you think you could win with Todd frickin Collins if JC got hurt and then limit Forte because you only have Chester Taylor to throw in there?
Gotta throw 18 Bullschit flags on that, just give them a reminder of the gift they got at Chicago the last time ...
The Bears didn't try at all. They only played their starters for 60 minutes.
The story on 670 is that CHI treated wk17 as a "free look" at the Packers. They were able to throw all kinds of stuff out there, in earnest, to see if it worked and how the Packers would respond. They tried to knock GB out of the playoffs but used the game as a testing ground as well.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DH13:
They were able to throw all kinds of stuff out there, in earnest, to see if it worked and how the Packers would respond.
Call me crazy, but isn't that Lovies plan going into every game????
They were able to throw all kinds of stuff out there, in earnest, to see if it worked and how the Packers would respond.
Call me crazy, but isn't that Lovies plan going into every game????
His plan was to beat the Packers, he even said so in his opening press conference
quote:Originally posted by DH13:
The story on 670 is that CHI treated wk17 as a "free look" at the Packers. They were able to throw all kinds of stuff out there, in earnest, to see if it worked and how the Packers would respond. They tried to knock GB out of the playoffs but used the game as a testing ground as well.
Yeah, I'm sure Compers doesn't self-scout on his tendency vs their formations ...
Martz better remember there is another champion poker player at the other side of the table and his chips just might be a tad better ...
Gonna be real interesting ...
quote:Originally posted by DH13:
The story on 670 is that CHI treated wk17 as a "free look" at the Packers. They were able to throw all kinds of stuff out there, in earnest, to see if it worked and how the Packers would respond. They tried to knock GB out of the playoffs but used the game as a testing ground as well.
Damn. Lovie knew that Green Bay would win at Philly and at Atlanta, knew the Saints would lose their 4th and 5th RBs and blow one in Seattle, and knew he'd beat the worst team in playoff history at home to host the Packers in the NFCC? Well played, Smith. Well played.
quote:Originally posted by DeepChicago:
They did play to win, they just went with a vanilla playbook.
Bullshcit! Either you're a moron, or Lovie is....take your pick!
quote:Originally posted by DeepChicago:
Either way, who cares?
You do, you posted some long moronic rant about this in another thread.
Arkush just asked the right question in the radio regarding this issue.
"If you really were throwing a vanilla game plan out there or not putting your best game plan out there to win and didn't Really care about the outcome, can you think of anything more stupid than playing all your starters for 60 minutes?"
"If you really were throwing a vanilla game plan out there or not putting your best game plan out there to win and didn't Really care about the outcome, can you think of anything more stupid than playing all your starters for 60 minutes?"
The problem was the offensive game plan. martz reverted back to Mad Mike Martz and threw the bal twice as much as he ran it. forte was avging 6 yds a carry and only got 15 carries. In a 7 pt game?
DH13, remember who the coach is. Lubbie Smith.
DH13, remember who the coach is. Lubbie Smith.
quote:Originally posted by ChilliJon:
So the Bears plan was to take a shaky QB on the Road, tie his hands behind his back with a stripped down playbook, let him get hammered on and sacked 6 times, and subject him to that for 4 quarters?
Good plan.
Genius. Sheer genius, I'm tellin' ya. Nobody would ever expect that!
What I heard them saying on Chicago 670 AM on Thursday morning (I've been here since then) is not that they played the game in such a way as to learn how the Packers would react to certain situations, etc., but that they could learn from playing a close game against the Packers and that the experience might help them in the third meeting.
quote:Originally posted by Salmon Dave:quote:Originally posted by ChilliJon:
So the Bears plan was to take a shaky QB on the Road, tie his hands behind his back with a stripped down playbook, let him get hammered on and sacked 6 times, and subject him to that for 4 quarters?
Good plan.
Genius. Sheer genius, I'm tellin' ya. Nobody would ever expect that!
McCarthy and Capers went with an "empty waffle cone" plan for week 17. Save it for Championship Weekend.
They played to win because they knew the Packers are a tough team. I heard that Lovie said if the Bears scored a TD near the end they would have played for OT and the chance to win in OT rather than try a two-point conversion for a win.
I thought it was admirable for the Bears to play for keeps all the way to the final INT.
That was the game that really got the Packers off on a roll. I sometimes think if the Bears had given up earlier, the Packers would not have won in ATL.
I thought it was admirable for the Bears to play for keeps all the way to the final INT.
That was the game that really got the Packers off on a roll. I sometimes think if the Bears had given up earlier, the Packers would not have won in ATL.
quote:Originally posted by DeepChicago:
They did play to win, they just went with a vanilla playbook. You really think we're going to run Forte over 20 carries in a "meaningless" game before the playoffs???
Bears brass would have loved to beat you for the rivalries sake, and I have no doubt the players were trying as well.
The playbook and the plays were vanilla because if we didn't win, we knew we might see you again. Obviously, I'm speculating here, but if you watched the game and looked at Fortes carries, it makes sense.
Save Forte for the playoffs and get your QB killed. Nice game plan.
Guess I should read the entire thread before posting....
quote:but that they could learn from playing a close game against the Packers and that the experience might help them in the third meeting.
Um...if it were that simple, they already played a close game against them in wk3 and how in the hell would they know it was going to be a close game, enough play everyone 60 minutes!?
The big difference was Martz going back to his 7-step drop style in wk17, something that wasn't working up until thier bye, and that he altered it into a more balanced attack after the bye. That balance was absent in wk17. Whatever they tried, it failed.
Sunday is pretty simple. If both teams play their best game, Green Bay is heading to Dallas.
quote:Originally posted by DH13:quote:but that they could learn from playing a close game against the Packers and that the experience might help them in the third meeting.
Um...if it were that simple, they already played a close game against them in wk3 and how in the hell would they know it was going to be a close game, enough play everyone 60 minutes!?
The big difference was Martz going back to his 7-step drop style in wk17, something that wasn't working up until thier bye, and that he altered it into a more balanced attack after the bye. That balance was absent in wk17. Whatever they tried, it failed.
Cutler (and others) admitted after the game that they ran the exact same sets and play-list as they did week 3. Thus the 7 step drops in wk17 that they had pretty much stopped using the second half of the season. It means that GB's staff has NOT seen what they had been using the second half in person. The real answer to this discussion is that Lovie decided to BOTH play straight up with his starters and try to get a win AND try to not show all his cards for a possible playoff meeting with GB. If he got a win fine, if not then he didn't show much for the Packers staff to work with the next game.
The Bears must be hoping that the Packers don't bother to look at film of any other games then. Pure genius.
Anyone who suggests that the Packers or Bears won't be prepared for this game based on what plays were called during the season is talking out of their arse. The team that wins will be executing it's typical game plan better with less mistakes than the other. Simple as that.
A wise man once said, "Football is easy. It's blocking and tackling."
Whoever blocks & tackles the best will win.
Whoever blocks & tackles the best will win.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
FTFY
This whole argument is really stupid if you ask me.
If anything the Bears were non-vanilla because they threw the ball all over the place - at nearly a 3-1 ratio.
Defensively, I saw some man defense looks from the DBs that I hadn't seen before.
The Packers beat them and beat them soundly. The only reason you throw that comment out there is to pump up your team and fans because everyone knows that on paper GB is the better team. If Chicago couldn't beat the Packers when the stakes were high (for GB) then how will that help them now? If anything, the Packers should come into this pretty confident because the Bears couldn't knock them out a month ago when they really needed to.
If anything the Bears were non-vanilla because they threw the ball all over the place - at nearly a 3-1 ratio.
Defensively, I saw some man defense looks from the DBs that I hadn't seen before.
The Packers beat them and beat them soundly. The only reason you throw that comment out there is to pump up your team and fans because everyone knows that on paper GB is the better team. If Chicago couldn't beat the Packers when the stakes were high (for GB) then how will that help them now? If anything, the Packers should come into this pretty confident because the Bears couldn't knock them out a month ago when they really needed to.