Thread: Bears QB Kyle Orton confounds Minnesota Vikings

"Marrdro" wrote:

"C" wrote:

Plain and simple... this game came down to TWO touchdowns for the Bears on Special Teams... that's all.

We GAVE them 14 points... there's no arguing that. Plain and simple.

So what your trying to tell me is that their offense didn't earn those other points against our defense?

I know I didn't see the game but I am sure if the Bores came on the field and marched down to score without our defense out there I would have seen it on the ESPN highlights film.

Our coaching staff has preparation issues and that includes the defensive coaches as well.

Actually the issue was the short field given up to them, not the defense.
Remember, the Bears only had about 330 yards of total offense, nothing exceptional by today's standards.
But when a team starts on the 50, there's no room for error on the D.
I believe they gave up 3 big plays, one of which has a completely break down in tackling, the other 2 were the TE exposing our 3rd string MLB.
They completely dominated the 4th quarter which is why the O had a chance to come back from 3 scores down to have a chance to go for a tying drive before Gus threw his 4th INT.

It's funny, normally we defend our D by how many points they allowed but for Sunday's games a better reflection was how many yards they allowed.
They were just put in very bad positions.

Man sometimes the vitriol and hate get just a little too thick to swallow, even with a good cup of coffee.
Perhaps all of you should read Patrick Ruesses article in todays Tribune and take to heart a few good quotes.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vi...L7PQLanchO7DiU

The most comical attempts at an apology for a player are those aimed at Chris Kluwe. The suggestion is that Kluwe's confidence was so low after Childress tried out punters a couple of weeks ago that it caused him to drop Sunday's on-the-mark snap from Cullen Loeffler.

If you're embracing this theory -- that Childress should be held accountable for a fourth-year NFL punter dropping a snap -- then you have serious emotional issues and should avoid watching future sports events.

As was asked previously, was it Childress or was it personnel boss Rick Spielman who refused to yield a second-rounder for Rosenfels?

We don't know the answer, because they keep secrets at Winter Park, but what's clear is the coach wanted an option beyond Jackson or Frerotte for this season and didn't get him.

As for Sunday, driving for 41 points and 28 first downs without a No. 1 quarterback -- that was very impressive for the Childress offense, even as it earned him nothing but additional ridicule from a mouth-foaming public.

Patrick Reusse can be heard weekdays on AM-1500 KSTP at 6:45 and 7:45 a.m. and 4:40 p.m. • [email protected]

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"C" wrote:

Plain and simple... this game came down to TWO touchdowns for the Bears on Special Teams... that's all.

We GAVE them 14 points... there's no arguing that. Plain and simple.

So what your trying to tell me is that their offense didn't earn those other points against our defense?
I know I didn't see the game but I am sure if the Bores came on the field and marched down to score without our defense out there I would have seen it on the ESPN highlights film.

Our coaching staff has preparation issues and that includes the defensive coaches as well.

Actually the issue was the short field given up to them, not the defense.
Remember, the Bears only had about 330 yards of total offense, nothing exceptional by today's standards.
But when a team starts on the 50, there's no room for error on the D.
I believe they gave up 3 big plays, one of which has a completely break down in tackling, the other 2 were the TE exposing our 3rd string MLB.
They completely dominated the 4th quarter which is why the O had a chance to come back from 3 scores down to have a chance to go for a tying drive before Gus threw his 4th INT.

It's funny, normally we defend our D by how many points they allowed but for Sunday's games a better reflection was how many yards they allowed.
They were just put in very bad positions.

Excellent points my friend.

Problem I have with that is it wasn't to long ago that when our Offense gave the team short field they only gave up 3's.
Now a fella can almost guarantee it will be 7.

As I told EJ, don't give up trying to sway me back, but
I am down on this entire coaching staff and none, because they are all culpable in a way, will be spared by criticisms.

You know me, I think these things out long before I state them and I have been stewing over this for about 2 years.

(Key note:
This meaning inconsistent play and the coaching staffs ability/inability to deal with it).

"Bkfldviking" wrote:

Man sometimes the vitriol and hate get just a little too thick to swallow, even with a good cup of coffee.
Perhaps all of you should read Patrick Ruesses article in todays Tribune and take to heart a few good quotes.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vi...L7PQLanchO7DiU

The most comical attempts at an apology for a player are those aimed at Chris Kluwe. The suggestion is that Kluwe's confidence was so low after Childress tried out punters a couple of weeks ago that it caused him to drop Sunday's on-the-mark snap from Cullen Loeffler.

If you're embracing this theory -- that Childress should be held accountable for a fourth-year NFL punter dropping a snap -- then you have serious emotional issues and should avoid watching future sports events.

As was asked previously, was it Childress or was it personnel boss Rick Spielman who refused to yield a second-rounder for Rosenfels?

We don't know the answer, because they keep secrets at Winter Park, but what's clear is the coach wanted an option beyond Jackson or Frerotte for this season and didn't get him.

As for Sunday, driving for 41 points and 28 first downs without a No. 1 quarterback -- that was very impressive for the Childress offense, even as it earned him nothing but additional ridicule from a mouth-foaming public.

Patrick Reusse can be heard weekdays on AM-1500 KSTP at 6:45 and 7:45 a.m. and 4:40 p.m. • [email protected]

Appreciate those quips from the article.
It appears I have the same views as Patrick Reusse regarding this situation.

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

we also have to remember, we almost NEVER win in Chicago.
works both ways though, the bears rarely win in Minnesota.

Good teams win on the road.

"i_bleed_purple" wrote:

we also have to remember, we almost NEVER win in Chicago.
works both ways though, the bears rarely win in Minnesota.

a little history that might disagree with that:

http://min.scout.com/2/690286.html

The rivalry with the Bears, however, has been a much different story. It has been marked by the dominance of one team over the other and a changing of the guard in this battle has often resulted in long-term dominance. Consider the following:

The Bears have won four of the last five meetings dating back 2004. Prior to that, the Vikings had won three of four. In 2001-02, the Bears won three straight games, but before that the Vikings had beaten Chicago in eight of nine games dating back to 1997. From the 1994 playoff meeting until 1997, the Bears won four of the meetings, including three straight at the Metrodome. From the time Denny Green came on board until the playoff loss at the end of the 1994 season, the Vikings won six straight times after the Bears had won four of six games from 1989 to 1991.

During the heyday of Mike Ditka, the Bears won eight of nine meetings from 1983-87. Prior to that, during the Bud Grant Administration, the Vikings posted a 24-6 record from 1969-81. From the Minnesota’s arrival on the NFL scene, in which they beat the Bears in their first game as a franchise, Chicago won of 11 of the next 15 games before the Vikings' dominance – losing two and tying two in that span.

When teams come in and run a spread, no-huddle offense it makes us look silly.
We were lucky the Colts were dinged up or they would have whooped us like the Pats and like the Bears this week.
Yes ... the two special teams gaffes were huge in this loss ... and yes, I am somewhat a Childress apologist, but he got manhandled by Lovie Smith in this game.
WE HAVE SEEN THIS EXACT SAME THING BEFORE and we still had NOTHING for it? That is unexcusable.

"midgensa" wrote:

When teams come in and run a spread, no-huddle offense it makes us look silly.
We were lucky the Colts were dinged up or they would have whooped us like the Pats and like the Bears this week.
Yes ... the two special teams gaffes were huge in this loss ... and yes, I am somewhat a Childress apologist, but he got manhandled by Lovie Smith in this game.
WE HAVE SEEN THIS EXACT SAME THING BEFORE and we still had NOTHING for it? That is unexcusable.

Exactly.
Here is a quote from Winfield in the article, "We did a lot of zone blitzing," he added. "The quarterback did a good job of getting the ball out of his hands fast and letting his receivers make some plays."

That is ALL you have to do against our defense.
We stopped GB from running the ball (except for the one 50yarder) and look what they did to us: 3 step dropped us to death.
I agree with PandG and EJ to some degree that the defense can't be constantly sitting in their own territory, but Marr's point still stands.
We scheme like shit sometimes, and we don't make adjustments.
Our only defensive strenght is our front 4 now due to Henderson being out.
However when teams come out and run spread offenses and 3 step drops, there isn't time for our DL to get to the QB.
Teams play catch against us and with the field position we are giving up on STs. They only need 3-4 plays to get into scoring range.


Its starting to drive me insane, seriously.


On a positive note, the offensive production has improved.
If we can get the 3 phases of the game going, we are in business.

"seaniemck7" wrote:

"midgensa" wrote:

When teams come in and run a spread, no-huddle offense it makes us look silly.
We were lucky the Colts were dinged up or they would have whooped us like the Pats and like the Bears this week.
Yes ... the two special teams gaffes were huge in this loss ... and yes, I am somewhat a Childress apologist, but he got manhandled by Lovie Smith in this game.
WE HAVE SEEN THIS EXACT SAME THING BEFORE and we still had NOTHING for it? That is unexcusable.

Exactly.
Here is a quote from Winfield in the article, "We did a lot of zone blitzing," he added. "The quarterback did a good job of getting the ball out of his hands fast and letting his receivers make some plays."

That is ALL you have to do against our defense.
We stopped GB from running the ball (except for the one 50yarder) and look what they did to us: 3 step dropped us to death.
I agree with PandG and EJ to some degree that the defense can't be constantly sitting in their own territory, but Marr's point still stands.
We scheme like pooh sometimes, and we don't make adjustments.
Our only defensive strenght is our front 4 now due to Henderson being out.
However when teams come out and run spread offenses and 3 step drops, there isn't time for our DL to get to the QB.
Teams play catch against us and with the field position we are giving up on STs. They only need 3-4 plays to get into scoring range.


Its starting to drive me insane, seriously.


On a positive note, the offensive production has improved.
If we can get the 3 phases of the game going, we are in business.

Excellent post my friend.

Took Bevell 3 years to put some points on the board.........Wonder if he can do it again.
We still haven't seen any consistency on the Defensive side of the ball.

Gonna be a guess here but I assume that after a bye week the two coordinators should be able to come up with something that this team can execute.

I have no confidence in our ST's coach.
;D

"C" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"C" wrote:

Plain and simple... this game came down to TWO touchdowns for the Bears on Special Teams... that's all.

We GAVE them 14 points... there's no arguing that. Plain and simple.

So what your trying to tell me is that their offense didn't earn those other points against our defense?

I know I didn't see the game but I am sure if the Bores came on the field and marched down to score without our defense out there I would have seen it on the ESPN highlights film.

Our coaching staff has preparation issues and that includes the defensive coaches as well.

No, that's called putting words in my mouth.

Their offense put up points, but not enough to beat us. We gave them 14 points on ST... that's all I said.

Now, look at the final score and subtract 14 from the Bears.

I did watch the game, and the Vikes looked sharp... our Offense even looked better than theirs, and we should have won this game.

You gotta love it.
Marrdro criticizing and C Mac defending.


When he says we gave up 14 points on ST's, he's talking about the blocked punt returned for a TD and the gaffe by Gordon when trying to field a punt on the 5 yard line.
We pretty much gave those 14 away which killed any momentum we were gaining on our offense.
ST's was beyond stank on Sunday, it was downright embarrassing.

However, we did give up another 34 points with our defense on the field albeit on a short field most of the time.

It was just another crazy game in today's NFL where nothing works out the way you think it will or should.
89 points in a Vikings/Bears game, yea right.
I think I'm 4-10 for the week on my picks.