Da Bears - Monsters of the Midway Thread - Page 365 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > 32 NFL Teams > Chicago Bears

  #3641  
Old 30.11.2010, 11:32 AM
thunderbear1's Avatar
thunderbear1 thunderbear1 is offline
Pro Bowler
 
Join Date: 15.09.2003
Posts: 663
Default

It was still a finger biter though!

Light-weight WR's???? Really. I think the Hester,Knox,Bennett combo is bloody dangerous.

The defence was unbelievable.Being able to rush a 4 man front and get to the QB allowing the DBs to play midfield protection was a great bit of strategy that strangled Vick of big play options.

The Oline did well (with a few wobbles) to protect Cutler. Cutler showed anything Vick can do I can do as well.Nice scrambling fella.

A 10 minute drive in 3rd quarter shutting out the Eagles.

I was actually disappointed though.

Penalties again cost us almost the game.Roach getting called on the kick off return.Thats twice in two games that penalties been called on breakout returns.Special teams need to support the ball carrier.Everytime we get the ball the likelyhood is a score, I don't want special teams players destroying the return specialists talent.

And Cutlers TD pass to Bennett in the middle, yes successful, but could have been an int. Bennett & Knox line up out right.10 yd route and Bennett comes in, into 4 man coverage, Knox goes right and separates from his CB.Why did Cutler risk the pass, was that the design of the play and did he check through his options.If that had gone wrong it would have turned the game the other way.

That 4th quarter was miserable, O-line broke down, Forte suddenly couldn't run the ball and burn time, Cutler had to go back to the air and the Eagles almost came back!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3642  
Old 30.11.2010, 12:03 PM
payton3434's Avatar
payton3434 payton3434 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 06.11.2005
Posts: 1,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbear1 View Post
Light-weight WR's???? Really. I think the Hester,Knox,Bennett combo is bloody dangerous.
LOL. I think you misunderstand me. I was literally referring to them being small-mass, light on their toes.

I like our WRs, they have good hands, decent skills and can all be effective. I still believe however that Cutler would benefit from a big-body that can make up for some of his... shall we say errors in judgement.

I would be very happy to see Tommy Harris out and Vincent Jackson in next season.
Reply With Quote
  #3643  
Old 30.11.2010, 08:53 PM
terry's Avatar
terry terry is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 25.10.2004
Posts: 3,362
Default

yeah our WRs are small and may need a go to guy in the end zone etc but are guys are making moves and yds on the YACs at the mo...Bennett and knox had a few big plays vs eagles...
Reply With Quote
  #3644  
Old 01.12.2010, 10:05 AM
InFlamesJames's Avatar
InFlamesJames InFlamesJames is offline
Starter
 
Join Date: 01.01.2010
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terry View Post
yeah our WRs are small and may need a go to guy in the end zone etc but are guys are making moves and yds on the YACs at the mo...Bennett and knox had a few big plays vs eagles...
I actually think Olsen has taken the place of a No. 1 receiver when we get into the red zone. He's what, 6'5"? Great weapon for a QB to be aiming at.

I agree though, a true no. 1 WR would be beneficial. Cutler had one at Denver and did pretty well...
Reply With Quote
  #3645  
Old 03.12.2010, 09:49 AM
bigbaz's Avatar
bigbaz bigbaz is offline
Team Captain
 
Join Date: 27.09.2009
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InFlamesJames View Post
I actually think Olsen has taken the place of a No. 1 receiver when we get into the red zone. He's what, 6'5"? Great weapon for a QB to be aiming at.

I agree though, a true no. 1 WR would be beneficial. Cutler had one at Denver and did pretty well...
A no.1 rec would be great but Olsen is still underused. Dallas Clark and Witten are their respective teams go to guys(I know they have a better,on paper at least, receiving core)and Olsen should be Chicagos. Safe hands and good quickness. Love to see Des Clark getting more reps. More 2/3 tight end sets would be interesting for quick short passes.
Reply With Quote
  #3646  
Old 03.12.2010, 11:09 AM
payton3434's Avatar
payton3434 payton3434 is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 06.11.2005
Posts: 1,495
Default

I'm all for Olson getting the ball more.

The reasons I want a big WR are simply because a big WR can win a jump ball and can shield the ball on short passes.

Cutler throws risky passes (makes plenty poor choices if you ask me) and throws late at static targets; big players can block-off and out-wrestle DBs.

The TD to Olsen against the Eagles; would Knox or Hester have stolen the ball? I don't think so, but there are plenty of big WR that would.

It is fine having small WRs but you have to get them the ball whilst they are moving. Hester showed last game just how good he can be on the simplest of routes.
Reply With Quote
  #3647  
Old 03.12.2010, 12:01 PM
olig23's Avatar
olig23 olig23 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 16.07.2005
Posts: 4,893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InFlamesJames View Post
I actually think Olsen has taken the place of a No. 1 receiver when we get into the red zone. He's what, 6'5"? Great weapon for a QB to be aiming at.

I agree though, a true no. 1 WR would be beneficial. Cutler had one at Denver and did pretty well...
What we are doing is fine. Olsen was the overwhelming red zone target last season and it resulted in lots of turnovers. You should never make anyone the primary target in any area of the field since other teams wil simply see that on film an capitalise on it.

Moreover, Cutler's biggest weakness is his ability to make decisions inside the 20, some people feel he doesn't read the field very well laterally but whatever it is you need to mix it up down there and size is quite an over-rated factor in the red zone anyway.

The bottom line is very, very simple: To be successful in the Red Zone you have to be able to move the ball on the ground. If teams are forded to respect the run they cannot drop more guys back into coverage.

The problems Chicago have simply boil down to not having a good enough offensive line. If we did have a good line I have always thought we would have an elite team, ever since we acquired Cutler.

It was the same last year when everyone was blaming the defence, which under tough circumstances has done a good job over the last few years, now we have an offence that can do something we are seeing the results.
Reply With Quote
  #3648  
Old 05.12.2010, 04:29 AM
Meaker's Avatar
Meaker Meaker is offline
Rookie
 
Join Date: 14.10.2010
Posts: 26
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by olig23 View Post
The problems Chicago have simply boil down to not having a good enough offensive line. If we did have a good line I have always thought we would have an elite team, ever since we acquired Cutler.
I agree; Cutler seems to be uneasy behind the offensive line - but he is a great talent and we shouldn't forget that. And in my opinion Cutler would out shoot most QBs when forced to commit.
Reply With Quote
  #3649  
Old 05.12.2010, 10:22 AM
bigbaz's Avatar
bigbaz bigbaz is offline
Team Captain
 
Join Date: 27.09.2009
Posts: 495
Smile

All valid points regarding Cutler. Run game needs to produce more. Bear weather also on the way and run game will need to be there for the next 5 games in a big way. Cutler is special in that his needs are very specific in trying to get the most from him but it could well be worth it as his talent is unquestionable. His gunslinger attitude just needs to be modified. Quick passes in short/medium range alligned to occasional pocket roll-outs are key. All depends on the run though.
Reply With Quote
  #3650  
Old 05.12.2010, 11:44 PM
bigbaz's Avatar
bigbaz bigbaz is offline
Team Captain
 
Join Date: 27.09.2009
Posts: 495
Smile

9-3 fellow Bears fans. Got to admire the "win ugly" attitude. Might not be pretty but Cutler playing within himself instead of trying to make every play himself is making a huge difference. I know I am repeating myself but I hope the home losses vs. 'Skins and 'Hawks are not crucial in January.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 02:35 PM.