Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

[Patler]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

5. r - 5 yds
6. r - 0 yds
7. pass intercepted

Yes, another predictable first two plays; kudos again for the predictability of protecting a lead. It put Favre in an obvious pass and Bears put on pressure, and Favre makes a bad mistake. 2nd and Five again was the time to pass, but MM was dedicating his team to the run.

Predictable based on what, their tendencies the previous 3 games? Absolutely not.

[Bretsky]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

5. r - 5 yds
6. r - 0 yds
7. pass intercepted

Yes, another predictable first two plays; kudos again for the predictability of protecting a lead. It put Favre in an obvious pass and Bears put on pressure, and Favre makes a bad mistake. 2nd and Five again was the time to pass, but MM was dedicating his team to the run.

Predictable based on what, their tendencies the previous 3 games? Absolutely not.

Based on the previous drive after a dominating 1st half passing performance. MM was going conservative

[Patler]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.

I didn't particularly like that series either, but it was just one series.

The running game was not stinking to that point. It had some ineffective plays and some effective ones, and more of the latter than the former. The running game was not any less effective than Favre's consecutive incompletions that ended one drive and his interception that ended another.

[Patler]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

5. r - 5 yds
6. r - 0 yds
7. pass intercepted

Yes, another predictable first two plays; kudos again for the predictability of protecting a lead. It put Favre in an obvious pass and Bears put on pressure, and Favre makes a bad mistake. 2nd and Five again was the time to pass, but MM was dedicating his team to the run.

Predictable based on what, their tendencies the previous 3 games? Absolutely not.

Based on the previous drive after a dominating 1st half passing performance. MM was going conservative

What about the first half running performance that gained 103 yards on 13 carries?

[retailguy]

Re: Harry Sydney throws some darts at MM

8. r - 1 yd
9. r - 3 yds
10. r - 4 yds.

TIME TO ADMIT FAILURE BY NOW AND SHOW SOME STONES. They should have been able to succeed the two previous series and failed. But hey, since our young and weak OL "should" be able to run, let's keep trying. Botching TWO out of FIVE running plays is an indicator what they are doing is not working. Two straight Three and outs would be another obvious indicator.

THAT PLAY CALL SERIES WAS SICK

This series started at the 10 right after Favre's interception. No it did not get the first down you wanted, but again it didn't show the run game to be dead. One bad play, and two that showed you can gain yards running. These were the three plays made by Briggs, in which McCarthy said the guards missed their blocks.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST DOWN PASS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THE RUN GAME IS NOT STINKING UP THE JOINT HERE ? It is failing and I flet that watching the game. Three three and outs when you stubbornly try to do what Green Bay is weakest at.

I didn't particularly like that series either, but it was just one series.

The running game was not stinking to that point. It had some ineffective plays and some effective ones, and more of the latter than the former. The running game was not any less effective than Favre's consecutive incompletions that ended one drive and his interception that ended another.

What the statistics fail to show is that the momentum in that game was slowly, methodically switching to the Bears. The Bears defense was gaining confidence that it COULD shut down the Packers after many, many examples in the 1st half where it couldn't.

Once the momentum shifted, the Bears defense took over the game, and gave the Bears offense an opportunity to make enough little plays to win.

Statistics don't tell that story, but it was clear if you were watching the game.

I agree with Bretsky. Play calling, while not solely responsible had a BIG impact on this game. Bold plays were needed to take the momentum back. They didn't happen, and the momentum shifted as a result.

[RashanGary]

1. Turnovers
2. Penalties
3. ST's


Those are the top 3. Way way way way way down on the list is McCarthy's coaching decision. Had the Packers players not shot themselves in the foot over and over and over they would have won that game. McCarthy put them in position to win. Was he perfect? Nope, no coach ever is, but he did enough. Any time you have 4 TO's and 12 penalties, you have to blame the players first and foremost. With 2 turnovers and 8 penalties, the Packers win and the Bears look much less dominating, even in the 2nd half.

This is a VERY young team. We can expect 3 or 4 more of these throughout the season. McCarthy deserves some slack, the same way Thompson deserved slack coming into his situation.

[retailguy]

1. Turnovers
2. Penalties
3. ST's


Those are the top 3. Way way way way way down on the list is McCarthy's coaching decision. Had the Packers players not shot themselves in the foot over and over and over they would have won that game. McCarthy put them in position to win. Was he perfect? Nope, no coach ever is, but he did enough. Any time you have 4 TO's and 12 penalties, you have to blame the players first and foremost. With 2 turnovers and 8 penalties, the Packers win and the Bears look much less dominating, even in the 2nd half.

This is a VERY young team. We can expect 3 or 4 more of these throughout the season. McCarthy deserves some slack, the same way Thompson deserved slack coming into his situation.

Yes, at least 3 or 4 more.

What you seemingly forget, is it is the coaches job to help the team overcome the things you mentioned above. One of the many mechanisms that coaches can use is playcalling to get the momentum back. That didn't happen this week, and played a significant part in the seeming comedy of errors that we called the 2nd half.

[Patler]

I watched it too, and I think the huge momentum reversal was the interception, and one play for a TD. To start the third period, the Packers matched them FG for FG. No momentum change there. After the int and one play for a TD all of a sudden they were only down by 3.

Even so, the three runs and a punt following the TD looked OK, because the defense held and forced a punt by the Bears. The real clincher was the Woodson fumble.

It looked to me that the interception was the first momentum changer and the Woodson fumble was the finishing touch. Those two plays made them believe more than any running play or plays that didn't gain yardage.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harry is quite the egomaniac. Apparently, he's one of these guys that thinks you can only know the game if you played in the NFL. Football isn't that complicated.

[retailguy]

I watched it too, and I think the huge momentum reversal was the interception, and one play for a TD. To start the third period, the Packers matched them FG for FG. No momentum change there. After the int and one play for a TD all of a sudden they were only down by 3.

Even so, the three runs and a punt following the TD looked OK, because the defense held and forced a punt by the Bears. The real clincher was the Woodson fumble.

It looked to me that the interception was the first momentum changer and the Woodson fumble was the finishing touch. Those two plays made them believe more than any running play or plays that didn't gain yardage.

Patler, yes, those were the "big" events, I'd agree, but you're a statistics guy. Were the odds better to "swing the momentum back the other way", by continuing to run, or by moving to short passes that they'd had success with for the entire season?

Cover two has a clear weakness in the middle of the field, and we've got two tight ends, and Donald Driver who have track records at "performing" in the middle of the field. We have/had an abysmal run game, that had "limited" success this game but performed poorly in the 1st 4 games.

When you need to, most people revert to their strengths to win games. McCarthy didn't do that, and what he did do didn't seem to work.

Arguing that the run game was working seems foolish to me, when we lost the game, and deservedly should have. I agree, we had more success running the ball than we have had all season long, but is it not as if Jim Brown, or Walter Payton was in the backfield. We had a bunch of no name Joe's who were probably overachieving with a 4 ypc average.

The odds of swinging the momentum weren't high, and the end result kind of backs up that perspective.

[Patler]

I blame MM more for his kickoff strategy than for the 9 running plays he called in the second half.

Kicking away from Hester and having the Bears start at the 30, 35, 36 and 40 following the kickoffs seems like more of a flawed strategy than a couple running plays that maybe could have been passing plays instead.

Interesting how the Bears' did better and the Packers worse with each successive kickoff by GB.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harry is quite the egomaniac. Apparently, he's one of these guys that thinks you can only know the game if you played in the NFL. Football isn't that complicated.

Sydney is straight forward and very opinionated.

This makes him an egomaniac? He is not a uu-rah-rah packer fan, which is what many fans seem to expect from their sports writers.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harry is quite the egomaniac. Apparently, he's one of these guys that thinks you can only know the game if you played in the NFL. Football isn't that complicated.

Sydney is straight forward and very opinionated.

This makes him an egomaniac? He is not a uu-rah-rah packer fan, which is what many fans seem to expect from their sports writers.

Whatever you say, Harlan. Harry always has little comments in his articles about how he played the game, and how he knows the game. If you have to tell people how smart you are, you probably aren't as smart as you think you are. I could careless about whether he's negative or not. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[RashanGary]

I agree Patler. The Bears played the best half of their season, but the Packers did their part screwing up along the way. Tough game, but they happen throughout a season. If McCarthy had a history of screwing up I'd be more harsh. He's not Mike Sherman yet.

[esoxx]

I agree w/ Bretsky as well. For whatever reason, M3 got caught up in the run game and became too rigid in the 2nd half. Was it simply b/c the Bears were playing their safeties back? I would think more thought went into it than that. The Bears were daring the Packers to run and they obliged, to grotesque results.

The Packers run game was solid in the 1st half but never got back on track after Wynn left early and Morency seemed to wear down with the knee problem. M3 played to the weakest area of his entire team to try and beat a rugged Bears defense, depending on the running backs and the run blocking of the OL. That was foolish.

Favre has had the hot hand this season and had an outstanding 1st half. He went away from their main strength to a glaring weakness the 2nd half and the results were predictible.

M3 should stand up and take some heat as well. His comments after the game about how he isn't interested in being a no-back or one-back offense that's all pass seemed petulant and whiney. You play to your strengths, not your weakness, given the personnel you have at the time. If that means empty backfield or one-back, then so be it.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.