Brandon Lloyd's Big Day, Nathan Vasher's Playing Time and the Bears Crack Down

by Adam T on Sep 23, 2008 7:12 AM CDT Comment 14 comments

***If one wanted to find bright spots in the Bears overtime loss to the Bucs, they could look at Brandon Lloyd's big day. Lloyd tallied 124 yards and a TD, but don't look for Lloyd to be happy about it.

"We lost the game," Lloyd said. "I don't have any consolation prizes."

This was the first time since Kyle Orton and Rashied Davis looked like a legitamate QB/WR combo in the third preseason game, that the Bears had what passed as a real passing attack. Hopefully they can continue to hook up next week. This was the first 100 yard receiver Orton has had in his 21 games started.

***Having a long term contract in place and being solidified as the Bears #2 cornerback, Nathan Vasher started the game on the bench in favor of Corey Graham.

The reason for the switch was Tampa Bay's personnel. With the Bucs going with two running backs, two tight ends, and one wide receiver, the Bears kept Charles Tillman on the receiver and opted for the mismatch of Graham on the tight end.

"He did an excellent job at it today,'' Vasher said of Graham. "I'm fine with it. They felt like he would do a good job with it.''

***Making good on a new rule that makes tailgating at Bears games without having tickets against the rules, the Bears sent patrons home.

The tailgate policy -- which still allows for tailgating before games but stops the tradition at kickoff -- is part of the Bears' new "Help Stop UnBEARable Behavior" campaign.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Forte/Jones-Split Backs

It was great to see Lloyd starting to emerge as what appears to be almost the makings of an actual NFL receiver, but why are we using the tailbacks the way we are? What would be the problem with a 2WR, TE, 2RB formation with Jones/Forte split to each side of the QB? Then you have two legitimate running threats out of the backfield (sorry McKie), both who can pull a decent pass block or two off, one of those backs who’s damn good catching it out of the backfield, and the option to maybe give a different look or two than “Well, they’re in the single back formation on 2nd and long, watch for the draw.”

I’m as frustrated as anyone by Ron Turner’s “inventiveness”, but really, how come I can play Madden and see 100 plays that could be executed by the Bears somewhat iffy talent, and then I watch Turner trot the same couple formations and plays on field.

You can, at the least, make up for a lack of talent in the short term with inventive, strategic plays that utilize your strengths. Look how the Dolphins beat the Patriots—using offensive plays that were different, unique, weren’t ON FILM, and the defense had a hard time adjusting to. I’m not saying we need gimmicks or trick plays, but at least a play that isn’t a run off a tackle or a 6 yard comeback route.

by KDoggers on Sep 23, 2008 11:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I alluded to what the Dolphins did in another thread.

You can score points in this league with mediocre talent… IF you can outcoach you opponent. The Dolphins outcoached the Pats on Sunday. It’s on film now though, and they will have a difficult time beating teams with those play designs again.

However, it works. Even if for just one game. The tough part is coming up with something new or unexpected on a weekly basis to catch your opponent off guard.

When the Bears went to the no huddle last year vs the Giants, it worked to perfection. But, they pulled the plug on it after one drive. Would like to see it again… if we get to 2nd and short on one of our opening drives.

On your suggestion about replacing the formation McKie with a 2 RB set… I have to give it the whammy. Our line is so poor, that Forte needs McKie in there to be a lead blocker.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Sep 23, 2008 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Outcoaching is a big key. It’s just rare to see Turner do such.

I have to disagree with a split back. Again, it depends on how you go with it exactly, but I think it can show some benefits, especially in the play action department, or with some outside tosses or pitch fakes.

It’s obviously not a formation that’s going to be workable on every down, but in a third and mid, I think it gives you a lot more option. While I can’t deny McKie’s ability to eat up a block, I’d like to see something different to give us a chance on anything longer than third and 2-3. (I’d also like to see forte getting a shot at converting those 3 and 2’s more, but that’s another story.)

by KDoggers on Sep 23, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forte hasn't had many holes to run though so far in 3 games.

Take his lead blocker out of the equation, and I fear he’ll never see a hole again.

The fact that Forte is among the top leaders in rushing through 3 games speaks volumes about his talent… because the line he’s running behind is awful. He has home run ability to make a guy at the 2nd or 3rd level miss and outrun the rest to the endzone. Problem is… he’ll rarely get to that second level in open space behind this line.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Sep 23, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, there aren't a ton of holes

But the man has the ability to make open field plays on a toss or a short pass play. Having a delay or draw threat on the occasional play doesn’t hurt either.

You seem to be implying that I no longer want him to have a lead blocker, which for a fundamentally running team is ludicrous. Yes, I still want him to have a blocker. Yes, I want him to run for well over a thousand yards. But he’s still a rookie…he’s still getting used to it….and you’ve got another guy who knows how to run effectively. Use them both sometimes.

by KDoggers on Sep 23, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A two RB set makes us...

Weaker in the run game: we lose our lead blocker, and
Weaker in the pass game: we lose a very capable blitz protector.

Let Jones do what he’s here to do: spell Forte.
Let McKie do what he’s here to do: make a hole, and pick up blitzes.

To outsmart our opponent, we’ll need to open up the playbook, and show them we can do different things out of the formations we like to use most. In the Panther game, we ran the same short down play to McKie 3 times. The Panthers destroyed us on the last attempt. We need to start using mis-direction, go to play-action early on in the game, and we need to get our TEs more involved in the passing game from our running formations.

We also need to find ways to get Hester and Wolfe on the field without the defense keying on them… basically, don;t be so damn predictable. Ditto with Kellen Davis. We bring him in in a 3 TE on short yardage, and the defense absolutely knows for sure we’re running the ball. Try play action next time your in a 3 TE set on 3rd and short. Then, it won’t be so damn predictable. We’re not good enough to overcome predictability. And, yet… we’ve been so darn predictable for years.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Sep 23, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you want to open up the playbook....

but you stubbornly refuse to consider using a formation occasionally? Jesus, like I said, I’m not looking to replace our base formations, I’m looking for a different look, occasionally. Yeah, don’t run the same play up the middle 3 times if you don’t have Jerome Bettis. I fully agree.

But to tell me you want to open up the playbook but steadfastly not consider something that I was suggesting you use once, twice, maybe three times in a game, is just ridiculous.

As far as McKie’s blitz protection goes, I’ve seen him get lit quite a few times, so let’s not pretend like he’s God’s gift to pass protection.

by KDoggers on Sep 23, 2008 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would work well for Dallas...

But, this is the Bears we’re talking about. You’ve watched this offensive line play… correct?

I want them to open up the playbook by showing teams that we can pass the ball effectively out of multiple TE sets. Because we need multiple TEs on the field to help out this pathetic line of ours. Plus, the TE position happens to be our only position of strength on this offense, that we can actually create a mismatch with.

Tampa scored that last TD on us when Jeremy Stevens was screaming to his QB… Hunter Hillenmeyer is covering me! Hunter Hillenmeyer is covering me!

Now, that was Jeremy friggin Stevens. Reverse the situation and think what a mismatch it would’ve been if it was Olsen, Clark, or Davis. We need to find ways to cause those mismatches, because those TEs may be our best weapons, aside from Forte and Hester. So, get those TEs on the field… and keep them on the field… and force adjustments from the defense.

You want to see a unique formation occasionally? How about running a 3 TE set during a regular down and distance situation. Run and pass out of it, and force the defense to change personnel.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Sep 23, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Putting a 3rd Tight End On the field...

isn’t going to automatically open up any more running lanes than having the FB on the field, or an alternate running back. It’s a great idea, certainly, and I have no problem with it.

I just don’t think 3 TE is the magic formula to fix our offense, either. That’s why a mix of things is going to do it. If you want to go the 3 TE formula, I’d just as well like to see Olsen line up in an outside spot like we’ve shown previously, opposite Lloyd, to help open up some field for Clark or Davis, or the outpass to Forte. I wouldn’t mind seeing Olsen lay down a fierce block on a corner to open up the outside.

by KDoggers on Sep 23, 2008 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to see that 3 TE set

With Olsen split wide.

Last year we split Olsen wide like the Colts do with Dallas Clark, and had success with it… then, we stopped using it. It’s maddening.

I want to see 3 TEs on the field on a 2nd and 4 or 5… and I want them to pass in that formation. Then, a couple series later on 1st and 10… go with the 3 TE set again… and pass. Keep passing out of that formation until the defense finally changes personnel on you. Then, after you’ve forced the adjustment and have backed them away from the LOS… BOOM, let those TEs open up holes and let Forte run wild.

I remember Doug Buffone saying once last year, that there are maybe 1 or 2 plays in an entire game, where the offense executes everything perfectly as designed, and the RB finally has that big hole he needs to make a huge run. Buffone was saying this as he was lobbying for us to sign Michael Turner, because Turner has the ability to take a play like that all the way, unlike the recent list of Bears RBs over the past several years. Well, it appears the Bears lucked out with Forte… because he’s showed us he can take it all the way.

So… find a way to outsmart the defense and get that 1 or 2 plays a game where he has that big hole he needs to take it all the way.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Sep 23, 2008 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

3 TEs for me

I like the idea a lot, cause Olsen will provide the mismatch. If a safey is on him you take him deep, if a corner is, create some space with his big body and throw short to a spot. I think this formation might be better suited to throw in than to run. Defenses will stack the line with 9 defenders regularly.

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

by propheteer on Sep 23, 2008 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

When you have 2 good running backs that can run, block and catch the ball out of the backfield they should be on the field at the same time. Does anyone recall Walter Payton/Roland Harper? In 1978 Walter had 1395 yards with 50 receptions for 480 yards and Roland Harper had 992 yards and 43 receptions for 340 yards by being on the field at the same time. I’m not saying that Forte/Jones will have similar numbers but they would represent a double threat out of the backfield. We finally have 2 good backs again. Use them!!!

by BigGeorgeTX on Sep 23, 2008 3:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Devin Hester is key to any passing game by the Bears

Whatever formation they do to stretch the field they are absolutely missing Devin the decoy because he generates mismatches. Often he gets double teamed opening up plays for the other receiving threats like Greg Olson, Des Clark, and now Brandon Lloyd. His absence in the Tampa Game was really felt. Receivers couldn’t get open because they were outmatched on the one to one against the Bucs passing defense , who are some of the best in the NFL.

by Oso Monstar of Midway on Sep 23, 2008 9:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs