SBNation.com User Blog: mac30

Why I don't mind this loss

mac30 — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:47:41 -0000

Well, you never like a loss, but our squeaky win over Carolina bothered me more than this, and this wasn't anything like our loss to Green Bay.

We played well, overall, and if Cutler doesn't go out i think we win this. There was a lot of bad luck (fumble bounces), poor officiating, and backup quarterbacking, and we were still in position to tie or win against a VERY good team. In particular, the line held up well, and receivers were able to get open occasionally (even if they dropped a ton). On D, we held them to few points, made the right adjustments against the run in the second half, and had good pressure at times.

There is plenty to nitpick about (stop running Forte up the middle, when he's so explosive on the outside), and I'm usually incredibly pessimistic about the team (glass half empty and all that) even after wins, but in this case i think we can go away, if not happy, at least not too upset.

Assuming, of course, that Jay comes back healthy next week.

Well, you never like a loss, but our squeaky win over Carolina bothered me more than this, and this wasn't anything like our loss to Green Bay.

Assuming, of course, that Jay comes back healthy next week.

Bears' Short Yardage Woes and a Solution

mac30 — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:11:41 -0000

The Bears have been bad in short yardage situations for years. We will see whether that trend continues this year, but having to throw to the tight end as a first option from the 1-yard line, as they did yesterday, does not indicate confidence in their ability to pound it in. (Granted, Barber was out - and he is expected to do some of that).

Here's a novel solution: Use Melton.

The guy used to play the position (he had sixteen TDs as a backup in two years at the position in college) and is showing himself to be a beast. If he can't run it in we might as well forget about trying at all. We already have one d-lineman playing fullback already (Clutts) why not another?

worries about this series

mac30 — Mon, 16 May 2011 21:31:39 -0000

Despite the unbelievable, amazing win last night - which was awesome. I think that last night highlighted some concerns as well, which could be a factor throughout the series.

Primarily, the concerns relate to the job the heat did on D-rose. He was totally unable to penetrate the lane all night, and was unable to make quick decisions to pass to the open guy. Despite his high assists, he's actually not a great passer - he doesn't have phenomenal vision and sometimes waits a beat too long before making the pass. This is generally not a problem because he is so incredibly quick, and so strong that he draws 3 or 4 defenders in the lane every time he drives, making passes much easier, getting fouled, or making shots that only he can make.

Last night, Miami forced him to take open jumpers, which means they did their job on him. Happens to be he hit his jumpers last night, which, if he could do regularly, would make him the most unstoppable player in the NBA (he's pretty close already). but he doesn't hit jumpers regularly, and you can't count on him to continue to hit outside shots. Furthermore, while Korver will hopefully round back into form (last night was a good start) the bulls can't rely on outside shooting to be as good as it was last night.

the other concern is Luol Deng. his minutes have been discussed all year, and he's managed to play at a high level all year despite the minutes. but i still get nervous given the beating he takes. He is too important to the team to get injured or slow down substantially. he's the only other guy aside from rose whose absence would kill this team.

This is not to say I'm not thrilled with the outcome, or that there aren't major positives (the bulls bench, rebounding, hustle, Deng's smothering D - despite my worries, TAJ!) just that a 21 point win might mask some problems that can come back to haunt the bulls. Not to channel Thibs talking about room for improvement after a big win - but i won't feel comfortable until i see the bulls extend this success in additional games.

Aromashodu

mac30 — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:22:27 -0000

I've been wondering about him all season, and this article talks a little bit about his future, or lack thereof, with the Bears: http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2011/01/aromashodu-odd-man-out-in-martzs-offense.html

All season long I've thought that he should see more of the field, not just because he has produced when given the chance, but because he seems particularly well suited as a receiver for Jay Cutler. Cutler has a big arm and a penchant for throwing into tight windows and letting his receivers get up there and make a play. With fast little guys like knox and hester that's not really an option. As as been noted on this blog and elsewhere, knox is personally responsible for a number of Cutler INTs, and many more incompletions are the result of small receivers who can't fight to make a grab.

Now, I don't know if Aromashodu is the guy to fill that roll, but he certainly never got the chance. In part because he's not Martz's type of receiver (and Martz is stubborn enough that until his QB gets pounded to a bloody pulp, he's not going to change his approach) but I'm also beginning to think that Martz is just a really bad evaluator of talent. This has been a weakness of Lovie Smith teams throughout his tenure, but in particular now, after the championship game demonstrated how idiotic it was to have Collins as the backup, I'm thinking that some of that is on Martz too. Lovie's quick pull of Collins makes me think he was never sold on Collins and had him there as a concession to Martz, figuring it was just a backup position. (Admittedly, this is total speculation).

Regardless of whether Aromashodu end up sticking with the Bears, I think the Bears are going to need to get a big physical receiver like him if they want to put Cutler in a position to succeed. Play to the strengths of your personnel - not to an idealized scheme or philosophy.

Peyton Manning and Jay Cutler

mac30 — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:07:01 -0000

Cutler is no Manning - let's make that clear right off the bat. But Manning's struggles the last three games are illustrative of an important point.

Manning did not all of a sudden forget how to play football. What is different now is that he's getting pressured more than he ever was previously and he has no talent at wideout (sound familiar?). It doesn't matter how good a QB is, in that type of situation, he's forced to throw the ball just a mite sooner than he would have liked to, and his receivers are just a little bit less open than they would have been. In a precision league that's a dangerous combination.

Receivers don't run the right routes, and the ball gets picked; receivers are just slightly off of where they should be and the ball gets picked; or they're just more tightly covered and the QB is forced to squeeze it in dangerously, throw it somewhere else, or take a sack. Moreover, with new guys in there, QB's and receivers don't have the comfort and trust with each other to know that a guy is going to be in a particular place. This is what i think is happening to Manning.

If your receivers are wide open you would never get called a "gunslinger" - that description only comes from having to force the ball, either due to pressure or no open guys. It's why I think you can't blame Cutler all that much for his struggles as a Bear. The pressure from an totally incompetent O-line (which still stinks, btw - just not quite as badly) has been well-documented, but the lack of any very good receivers is just as much a part of the problem. No big targets to make up for lack of separation, no great route runners to get open (how often has a bears player really gotten truly wide open? not often). As good as Bennet has been recently, he's still not a true number one receiver - but i think a lot of his success comes from Cutler's familiarity with him - they know each others' games and are on the same page.

For all of Knox's big play success, it never feels like he and Cutler are on the same page, and there have been many examples of him running the wrong routes, or failing to follow through on a route, causing a pick.

It's not just that i think Cutler would be a better QB with a decent line and good receivers, I think he would be a different QB. We've never heard "gunslinger" thrown around regarding Peyton Manning - but if he had the talent he has now for his whole career I bet we would have.

It's the Wide Receivers

mac30 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:41:59 -0000

Not Cutler. (Well, a little Cutler, but mostly them).

To quickly preface this point, I just want to say, I'm not making excuses for him just to make excuses (I have nothing particularly invested in Jay Cutler) but because so much of what is going on is clearly a systemic problem rather than an individual problem.

If you go through his picks one by one, you can tell that he is playing with garbage out there, and that a lot of the picks are caused by other players.

Not Cutler. (Well, a little Cutler, but mostly them).

If you go through his picks one by one, you can tell that he is playing with garbage out there, and that a lot of the picks are caused by other players.

Pick #1 is totally on him - no excuses here, as even if that lineman doesn't get pushed back into coverage, the receiver was double covered anyway.

Pick #2 would have clearly been a nice sideline completion if Hester doesn't fall down.

#3 is on Hester again. I don't know if bumping into the ref slowed him down, as Millen indicated, or just that Hester didn't finish his route (which is what I think) but clearly he expected hester to continue moving to spot, and Hetser didn't. This was very similar to the interception last week, where Earl Bennet stopped running on a route, making Cutler look bad.

#4 was more iffy. There seemed to be pass interference on that play, but I think the defender would have been able to break up the pass regardless of the interference.

#5 was on the receivers as well (and maybe the O-line). It's the last play of the game, and Cutler knows he has to throw it. The pocket is collapsing, and nobody is open. He can try to run for it, but he's a good 12 - 15 yards away - way too much ground to cover. Basically, he has to throw it in there and just hope something good happens. It didn't - but you can't exactly blame him. Go back and look at the play, and tell me who he should have thrown it to - there wasn't anyone open at all.

Which brings me to the broader point. He doesn't have very good WR's. They are quick, and some have good hands, but they don't run good routes, they don't get open, and they are terrible at adjusting to defenses. Cutler seems to often assume that they are way better than they actually are - putting the ball where they're supposed to be - but they never make it there.

I would have more of a complaint about a lot of these forced throws, if I could point to someplace else on the field that he should have thrown it to - but I can't because that place doesn't exist. If he didn't try to make these throws into tight coverage, he would end up taking a sack or throwing the ball away on 70% of the plays.

All of this is also tied into the O-line, because if they gave him more time, it would also give the WR more time to get open, and if they could run block, it would force defenders to respect the run, opening up some of the secondary - but as I said, it's a complete systemic breakdown, with each failing part exacerbating all the other failing parts.

At least the defense (which also stinks) played a little better...

Some Positives

mac30 — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:57:03 -0000

There were a lot of negatives last night, and they will be rehashed over and over, so I thought it would be worthwhile to post a few positives...

The wide receivers were not that bad. One of the major weaknesses of this team coming in was the inexperience at the wideout position, but the wideouts had some very nice plays against a tough secondary.
Cutler isn't actually this bad. He had his worst game ever as a QB. That's not going to last all season, and had he played just a tiny bit better (e.g. no interception in the red zone, one or two better passes), we would have been talking about a big bears win.
Brian Urlacher is not as irreplaceable as he once was. OK - this is a bit of a stretch, but still, Urlacher is older and not as big of a presence as he used to be. His absence is not going to hurt them as much as it would have a number of years ago.
Unless the O-line truly stinks, Forte will have a better season than he showed last night.
The defense, depleted as it was, made a very good QB in Rodgers, look out-of-sync all night (up until that last play). No one player seemed to stand out, but overall, despite what Lovie says about turnovers, the defense did its job.
Patrick Mannely is never going to make that mistake again.

I know, that this is weak brew in light of all of the negatives, but I wouldn't write off the season just yet...

There were a lot of negatives last night, and they will be rehashed over and over, so I thought it would be worthwhile to post a few positives...

The wide receivers were not that bad. One of the major weaknesses of this team coming in was the inexperience at the wideout position, but the wideouts had some very nice plays against a tough secondary.
Cutler isn't actually this bad. He had his worst game ever as a QB. That's not going to last all season, and had he played just a tiny bit better (e.g. no interception in the red zone, one or two better passes), we would have been talking about a big bears win.
Brian Urlacher is not as irreplaceable as he once was. OK - this is a bit of a stretch, but still, Urlacher is older and not as big of a presence as he used to be. His absence is not going to hurt them as much as it would have a number of years ago.
Unless the O-line truly stinks, Forte will have a better season than he showed last night.
The defense, depleted as it was, made a very good QB in Rodgers, look out-of-sync all night (up until that last play). No one player seemed to stand out, but overall, despite what Lovie says about turnovers, the defense did its job.
Patrick Mannely is never going to make that mistake again.

I know, that this is weak brew in light of all of the negatives, but I wouldn't write off the season just yet...

I want a trade, and it needs to be big!

mac30 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:20:02 -0000

I'm getting this sick feeling in my stomach that once again the trade deadline will pass, the bulls will have done nothing, and everyone will go on talking about the development of this player, and the potential of that player, and the Bulls will slide down down down past mediocrity to truly awful basketball (hint: we've seen their potential in that regard already this season).

If there's even a whisker of a chance to get Amare or Bosh we need to trade everyone but Rose to get them. A team with 2 legit stars at complementary positions is a team that can fill in the other spots with ease. I don't care if it means giving up Tyrus (whose upside is basically Amare now, as has been pointed out), Deng, Hinrich, Noah, Gordon.

In the past there have been good reasons that trades didn't happen - the Kobe trade was never a reality outside of wild rumors, we didn't have the pieces to get KG (no Al Jefferson), and Gasol is not such a stud that I'm too upset about not coughing up the financial relief that Memphis was looking for.

But there have been enough no-deals to get me thinking that there is something wrong here. The Gasol no-deal is the first hint of that. I think the Bulls are stingy - not with paying out money, but in trades it seems like they want a "win" or no trade, rather than mutually beneficial trades. The Suns have said they are not trading Amare because none of the offers have been good enough. Are you telling me the bulls are not capable of making a good enough offer? Of course they are - they don't think it's worth it - and that, in my opinion is idiocy. There is no way they are not a better team with Amare Stoudemire or Chris Bosh on the court (2 true stars) than with any number of 2nd tier very-good-but-not-great players. The of the second tier are not better than one from the top - the math just doesn't work that way. and don't be teased by the "emergence" of tyrus or noah - if they haven't shown it until now, there's really no reason a month of good play should change your mind. They certainly are not first tier guys.

So, whoever the heck is running the bulls right now - please pull the trigger.

Post-Mortem on the Season: Mediocrity

mac30 — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:18:49 -0000

This season has been a frustrating one from start to finish. Though a 9-7 record is really about what they deserve, the record doesn't quite tell the whole story. They were a mediocre team, but they didn't play consistently mediocre - they played inconsistently: sometimes they looked great and sometimes they looked worse than the Lions.

There were times when the offense looked like it could move the ball at will, especially at the beginning of the season when people were noting that it was the defense that let the Bears down in numerous contests, while the offense was able to put up big numbers. There were other times, whole games even, where the Bears looked like they couldn't move the ball two feet.

On the defensive end, the Bears occasionally looked dominant, stuffing the run, knocking down passes, and generally disrupting other teams' offensive game plan. But all too often a couple of great plays would be followed by the opposing team completing a big 3rd and long and staying on the field. There were mental breakdowns on defense, there were way too many cases of missed tackles (the down side of going for the strip every time), and there were long stretches where the pass rush was non-existent. There's a reason the Bears blitzed more than anyone in the league - the front 4 didn't get pressure. In turn, all the blitzing created big soft open spaces in the zones where linebackers and safeties would usually be, allowing easy completions.

Because of these weaknesses the Bears coaches were often left having to guess where they ought to marshal their resources, and thus the inconsistency: when they guessed right they would look great, but when they guessed wrong, or when the blitz was picked up, they would get beat for big plays.

Thus the season progressed maddeningly, with great plays and great games interspersed with miserable ones. Ultimately, the source of this wild variation seems to me to be the mediocre talent on the field, and the coaching staff's attempts to utilize that talent successfully - when it worked, it worked well - it just didn't work enough.

I have been internally critical of Lovie Smith for a lot of things he's done over the course of the season. In particular I have thought that he has not been a good in-game manager. But I think I might have been wrong about that. I think he's done the best he could with the talent on the field, which has been middling at best. (I do think he has been very bad at identifying which talent ought to be on the field, though).

The Bears were in a lot of close games throughout the season, indicative of the fact that they were in that big NFL muddle of mid-quality teams. In the NFL you typically have a few teams that are really, really good, a few teams that are really, really bad, and then a whole bunch of remaining teams that are mediocre. For those teams, luck has a lot to do with whether they end up anywhere from 6-10 to 10-6. Those whose true talent is 8-8 and get the lucky bounces to get in at 10-6 are usually wiped in the first round of the playoffs. So many of the Bears games turned on one or two key, critical, plays, but really good teams don't need those plays - they don't need the challenge to go their way, or the fumble to bounce their way, or the miracle field goal block, because they are already up 15 points with a couple minutes to go.

In some ways, the ending to the season was poetic. Over the last two weeks the Bears had unbelievable luck. So many improbable things had to happen for them to get the wild-card, and amazingly, every single one did. This included a host of miserable teams beating good teams with the playoffs on the line. Yet the Bears were unable to make sure that they beat the teams they needed to beat. In the Green Bay game they got a lucky block, a lucky coin toss, and a win. In the Houston game, a challenge on a fumble that should have gone their way (the Slaton fumble - there was no indisputable evidence that he had possession) didn't, and the onside kick didn't bounce their way, and that was that. A good team would not have been in a situation where those plays would have mattered.

Ultimately, the Bears ended up exactly where they belonged: 9-7 and out of the playoffs. As documented throughout this site, the Bears have a lot of work to do in the offseason - at least they can get working on that now without fooling themselves into thinking that a few lucky bounces indicate that they are a really good team.

More Offseason Discussion

mac30 — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:59:11 -0000

We might as well start talking about the offseason because no matter what happens next week, as has been documented and discussed in numerous posts, this is a team with major problems and no clear solutions.

A couple of days ago I focused on the O-Line as a major offseason need. The problem is that there aren't a lot of great options out there. I think any acquisition the Bears make has to have a couple of characteristics:

Relatively high level of performance
Relatively young player

The Bears are not so complete a team that they can acquire an aging veteran who will give you a season or two before being useless - that only works when the team is on the cusp, and just needs one or two more pieces to complete the puzzle. Similarly, for many, but not all, of our position needs, we can't really afford to take a flyer on a guy who seems like he has potential but hasn't really proven himself - our need is too acute. With all that said, we also have to recognize that money is not unlimited - so any Free Agent acquisition will come at the expense of some other possible pick-up.

There are no good options at QB. If by some miracle Philly is stupid enough to trade McNabb, that would be great. Otherwise draft a QB high, and let him and Caleb Hanie sit and wait for Orton to play out his last year, while learning the NFL ropes.

Unfortunately, this is not a great year for FA Wide Receivers. T.J. Houshmandzadeh is oooold, and though there is some chance that Anquan Boldin will be available in trade - it's not a sure thing by any means. For some inexplicable reason Earl Bennet has not been able to get on the field - apparently he doesn't drop passes with quite as much style as Booker, Davis, Lloyd, et. al. (I'm not saying he's good - but he can't be worse than what we put out there - it's not physically possible).

One possible option is Antonio Bryant. He's a bit troubled, but he's having an outstanding season, and he can always go car racing with Lance Briggs. There's a good chance he's available, as the Bucs have a lot of players going to Free Agency and may not resign all of them.

Ultimately though, this is another area with no clear answers. This is made more problematic by the Bears' inability to identify the talent that they have. Solid players (not stars) have had trouble getting on the field for the Bears (or are not resigned) but have productive, if unspectacular, careers with other teams (e.g. Gage, Wade, Bradley).

The only WR I want back next year are Hester and Bennet - and neither should be the premier WR.

With Graham and Tillman starting, and Vashar backing up - why do we need CB? Two reasons:

We haven't really been that good in pass defense. Teams have had a lot of success moving up and down the field on us, and we have had particular problems getting off the field on 3rd and real long. We need to make some improvements in this area.
Nnamdi Asomugha is an Unrestricted Free Agent. This guy is the best corner in all of football - by a large margin - and he's young too.

If we can't get him, Chris Gamble from Carolina is also a FA and they have one of the best pass defenses in the league.

Another area where you might wonder at the need until you realize that Mike Brown is a FA, and even if the Bears resign him he is not likely to be healthy a whole year. So you have to gamble that Payne improves a bit and that Steltz learns how to tackle, or that Daniel Manning gets moved back to Safety and can actually play the position.

In this context I would like to see them add another player to the mix to see if he could emerge. Tampa Bay's Will Allen is a FA, and would fit in well here. He knows the defensive scheme and has been a star on special teams for them. Given all of their Free Agents, mentioned above, it's not likely that they'll resign him, and as a backup, he'll probably come cheap.

We have a lot of questions along the offensive line. I would like to see the Bears make a play for Jordan Gross at Right Tackle. The Panthers may put the Franchise tag on him again but according to Pro Football Weekly they are also trying to keep Peppers and CB Chris Gamble (mentioned above), and don't like spending big FA money.

Vernon Carey would be my second best option, along with - amazingly - Marc Columbo as a close third (funny how he worked out in the end).

In his last year under contract Tait could fill in as an above average backup on either side, while Chris Williams should be healthy and ready to start at Left Tackle (he better be!). I would also consider a late round draft pick on Tackle well spent - especially one with some size, as the undersized nature of the line has caused us no small amount of trouble.

There aren't that many good guards available. Jahri Evans is a Restricted Free Agent so I'm not sure we would be able to get him, and if he's not available I would like to try to get Mike Goff (even though he's a bit older).

Football Outsiders stats show that NO has one of the top O-Lines in the league, and while SD does not have a good rushing offensive line overall, that has mostly been due to the incredible poor production from the left side of the line, while the right side has been good, and Goff is considered an excellent player.

LB (Bonus)

This is not a pressing need but the Ravens are going to be trying to resign Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs, and may not have money for Bart Scott who is an excellent Linebacker. Urlacher is not getting any younger, and the 3rd linebacker position is not exactly solid on the Bears. considering how important the Linebackers are in the scheme the Bears run, it would be nice to pick up a top player at this position.

Just kidding.

Summary

I think the Bears should use the top of the draft to focus heavily on receivers and a QB. I don't think the Bears should sign anyone over 32 (except for maybe Goff). Free agency seems to be a forum where good deals can be found on O-Line, as teams spend the big money elsewhere - but there aren't that many players available.

I haven't looked into the Bears Salary Cap situation, so I don't know how much of this will be feasible - maybe next post...

Relatively high level of performance
Relatively young player

The only WR I want back next year are Hester and Bennet - and neither should be the premier WR.

With Graham and Tillman starting, and Vashar backing up - why do we need CB? Two reasons:

We haven't really been that good in pass defense. Teams have had a lot of success moving up and down the field on us, and we have had particular problems getting off the field on 3rd and real long. We need to make some improvements in this area.
Nnamdi Asomugha is an Unrestricted Free Agent. This guy is the best corner in all of football - by a large margin - and he's young too.

If we can't get him, Chris Gamble from Carolina is also a FA and they have one of the best pass defenses in the league.

Vernon Carey would be my second best option, along with - amazingly - Marc Columbo as a close third (funny how he worked out in the end).

LB (Bonus)

Just kidding.

Summary

I haven't looked into the Bears Salary Cap situation, so I don't know how much of this will be feasible - maybe next post...

Off-Season Priority: Running Game

mac30 — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:23:29 -0000

But not the running back (he's great) - we need to seriously upgrade the O - Line.

In another thread someone brought up some Football Outsiders stats on the Bears o-Line. Generally speaking they do excellent football analysis there, and their stats can be used to tease apart different parts of the game, that are heavily intertwined.

For the offensive line, they use a number of measures to identify how much of a running back's success (or lack thereof) is due to the line and how much is due to him. Now I think we can all say that just looking at Forte run, simply as fans, we can tell he's an awfully good runner. But I have thought, based on my subjective assessment, that he's even better than that, and has been hampered by a line that has been extremely weak. The FO stats back this up.

Here's how they explain the stats:

Teams are ranked according to Adjusted Line Yards. Based on regression analysis, the Adjusted Line Yards formula takes all running back carries and assigns responsibility to the offensive line based on the following percentages:

Losses: 120% value

0-4 Yards: 100% value

5-10 Yards: 50% value

11+ Yards: 0% value

These numbers are then adjusted based on down, distance, situation, and opponent, and normalized...

This recognizes the fact that even a bad runner can get some yardage if the initial hole is there - that's the offensive line doing it's job, but a good runner will extend the play into the next level and a bad runner won't. With a bad offensive line, even a good runner will have a hard time, if there's nowhere to go.

Some other stats they also measure, which are not adjusted for opponent, are:

RB Yards: Yards per carry by that team's running backs, according to standard NFL numbers.

10+ Yards: Percentage of a team's rushing yards more than 10 yards past the line of scrimmage. Represents yardage not reflected in Adjusted Line Yards stat.

Power Success: Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks.

Stuffed: Percentage of runs that result in (on first down) zero or negative gain or (on second through fourth down) less than one-fourth the yards needed for another first down. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).

So given these stats, where do the Bears fit in?

RUN BLOCKING
Rank	TEAM	Adj. Line Yards	RB Yards	Power Success	Power Rank	10+ Yards	10+ Rank	Stuffed	Stuffed Rank
23	CHI	4.05	3.97	64%	19	18%	14	28%	30

The Bears are only 23rd overall, near the bottom of the league - but it's even worse than that, really: As you can see in the table, Forte is in the top half of the league once he gets out of the 10 yard O-Line area (14th overall), with close to 20% of his yards coming after he makes it past the O-Line. But his overall RB Yards are slightly below league average - this likely means the O-Line is hurting him.

Indeed, if you look at the situations where the O-Line is most important - short yardage situations on 3rd or 4th down - they only create space less than 2/3rds of the time. And they get stuffed more than anyone in the league besides for DET or CIN.

Now, their pass protection is fine. They're ranked 10th in the league with a 5% adjusted sack rate (sacks per pass attempt, adjusted for opponent etc.). But when you the line can't create holes to run in, it's still a serious problem.

Football Outsiders also breaks it down by where the run goes. The Bears O-Line is uniformly bad regardless of where the run goes, with one exception: they are 11th in the league when running up the middle or off guard (these are one category). When they run Left End they are 26th, Right End they are 22nd, Left Tackle 21st, and Right Tackle 23rd.

What's interesting is that Ron Turner, who I have felt has been inconsistent as a playcaller, seems to have recognized this fact, as 50% of the bears runs have gone up the middle or off guard (only 10% for each end, and 15% for each tackle).

The problem is that stuffs (which the bears are 3rd worst in) are also often a product of the interior of the line, which indicates to me that when the defense knows the bears have to run the ball in critical situations, they can stuff the middle and not worry about the outsides as much.

This is why the O-Line has to be a priority in the off-season. We don't know how well the rookie is as St. Claire has gotten all the playing time, but it seems like we need to improve significantly. Forte may really be a quality back in this league for a long time, but not if he has no holes to run through.

But not the running back (he's great) - we need to seriously upgrade the O - Line.

Here's how they explain the stats:

Teams are ranked according to Adjusted Line Yards. Based on regression analysis, the Adjusted Line Yards formula takes all running back carries and assigns responsibility to the offensive line based on the following percentages:

Losses: 120% value

0-4 Yards: 100% value

5-10 Yards: 50% value

11+ Yards: 0% value

These numbers are then adjusted based on down, distance, situation, and opponent, and normalized...

Some other stats they also measure, which are not adjusted for opponent, are:

RB Yards: Yards per carry by that team's running backs, according to standard NFL numbers.

10+ Yards: Percentage of a team's rushing yards more than 10 yards past the line of scrimmage. Represents yardage not reflected in Adjusted Line Yards stat.

Power Success: Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer. This is the only statistic on this page that includes quarterbacks.

Stuffed: Percentage of runs that result in (on first down) zero or negative gain or (on second through fourth down) less than one-fourth the yards needed for another first down. Since being stuffed is bad, teams are ranked from stuffed least often (#1) to most often (#32).

So given these stats, where do the Bears fit in?

RUN BLOCKING
Rank	TEAM	Adj. Line Yards	RB Yards	Power Success	Power Rank	10+ Yards	10+ Rank	Stuffed	Stuffed Rank
23	CHI	4.05	3.97	64%	19	18%	14	28%	30

Bears could be eliminated before Monday

mac30 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:07:51 -0000

From the Tribune:

If the Vikings, Cowboys, Buccaneers and Eagles win their games, the Bears are eliminated.

Obviously our best shot is to win the division, but it would be nice if we could still hope for the playoffs regardless of the Vikings.

A lot of things have to go our way to get in - it's just disheartening to think that a Monday night prime time game in front of a nation wide audience might not have any meaning at all.

How bad do those 11 seconds against Atlanta seem now?

From the Tribune:

If the Vikings, Cowboys, Buccaneers and Eagles win their games, the Bears are eliminated.

Obviously our best shot is to win the division, but it would be nice if we could still hope for the playoffs regardless of the Vikings.

A lot of things have to go our way to get in - it's just disheartening to think that a Monday night prime time game in front of a nation wide audience might not have any meaning at all.

How bad do those 11 seconds against Atlanta seem now?