BearsFansOnline.com

Mikefive wrote:Here's something I'd be telling him...

On any drop back, know that your receivers aren't going to beat the #1 CBs and not the #2s mostly. So in your pre-snap, identify where the #1s are and the coverage if you can or make your best guess and whichever WR is going to be covered by the #1 (unless it's a rub route that would create space), just don't even bother looking that way. Attack the 2's 3's and other defenders. That'll give you fewer options to process.

What do you think of that?

You can't teach a QB to ignore a receiver/side of the field in the scope of an offensive play/progressions.

It's a terrible idea... you're essentially telling the defensive coordinator that side of the field is shut down and you can roll coverage over to the other receivers. Ignoring all that, it's still a really bad habit to teach to a young QB in a read/progression offense like this.

Mikefive wrote:

46Blitz wrote:Sadly, this is exactly what Glennon was doing. Not bothering with anyone else but just dumping off to the RBs. What is not known, is if the coaches had anything to do with it.

So you're saying that what I said above was just throw to the RBs?

No.

And Yes.

It's that stupid game plan that didn't go so well for Glennon in which also got him benched. To be fair, he didn't have the ability to do otherwise. But Trubisky has the potential and has shown he can make those throws down field. Being that he is "in training" and development, I say if he can learn and get the job done with these WRs he will be on fire if he gets a legit weapon or two. Screw it, let him be challenged and let him challenge. He will only get better even if he makes a mistake or two.

Essentially yes, but again, I don't want to ingrain bad habits into my rookie QB. You have to think longevity when grooming a potential franchise QB. I know you can limit reads systematically. For example, how about a bubble screen on first down? How about spreading the receivers out and working rub routes?

Funkster wrote:Essentially yes, but again, I don't want to ingrain bad habits into my rookie QB. You have to think longevity when grooming a potential franchise QB. I know you can limit reads systematically. For example, how about a bubble screen on first down? How about spreading the receivers out and working rub routes?

Exactly, or sprinkle in some God damned RPOs like the kid did a bit in college. I mean my God, this has to be the stupidest approach to developing a QB that I've seen in the past couple seasons. Maybe the Rams and their static bullshit offense last season was worse -- maybe.

BTW, what do you guys think they do in the film room and during game planning sessions. Of course they look to stay away from bad mismatches and exploits they can take advantage of. That's what football is all about.

I understand what you are saying MikeFive, but think you have it spelled out badly.

They already do these things, But we don't really have a #1 WR on this team, so doubt a true shutdown CB is locked in on anyone specific anyway. You can however call plays to stay away from where you think is one of their strengths. That's exactly what they already do. But if for some reason they change their coverage, you can't just change who your first read is because the other reads may be behind. Some routes take longer to develop, some reads may be dictated after the first read etc.

Let's just say you have a safety playing Zone on the right side of the field. Your #1 read is your wideout to the right and he is running a go route. You also have a TE running a skinny post down the middle as a #2 read. Both reads depend on that safety and how he reacts. Let's just say the safety bites on the TE leaving the #1 WR one on one down the sideline. Do you still stick to forcing it to your "2nd read" because your afraid of that #1 CB even though it's the correct read? Even though it's a TE with underneath and over the top coverage? By this time, the pocket is collapsing. Your indecisive because you were told not to throw in the direction of the #1 CB. Now it damage control and your scrambling, your looking for your underneath outlet but since you moved from the pocket your out of position to make the toss.

Then you have to ask, Why didn't I just go to the original #1 read when I saw the FS bite on the post and my guy was shoulder to shoulder with that CB? That could have been a huge play...... That's right, my coach (who may not be back next year) told me to stay away from the #1 CB......

and I thought the regular news was depressing

46Blitz wrote:BTW, what do you guys think they do in the film room and during game planning sessions. Of course they look to stay away from bad mismatches and exploits they can take advantage of. That's what football is all about.

I understand what you are saying MikeFive, but think you have it spelled out badly.

They already do these things, But we don't really have a #1 WR on this team, so doubt a true shutdown CB is locked in on anyone specific anyway. You can however call plays to stay away from where you think is one of their strengths. That's exactly what they already do. But if for some reason they change their coverage, you can't just change who your first read is because the other reads may be behind. Some routes take longer to develop, some reads may be dictated after the first read etc.

Let's just say you have a safety playing Zone on the right side of the field. Your #1 read is your wideout to the right and he is running a go route. You also have a TE running a skinny post down the middle as a #2 read. Both reads depend on that safety and how he reacts. Let's just say the safety bites on the TE leaving the #1 WR one on one down the sideline. Do you still stick to forcing it to your "2nd read" because your afraid of that #1 CB even though it's the correct read? Even though it's a TE with underneath and over the top coverage? By this time, the pocket is collapsing. Your indecisive because you were told not to throw in the direction of the #1 CB. Now it damage control and your scrambling, your looking for your underneath outlet but since you moved from the pocket your out of position to make the toss.

Then you have to ask, Why didn't I just go to the original #1 read when I saw the FS bite on the post and my guy was shoulder to shoulder with that CB? That could have been a huge play...... That's right, my coach (who may not be back next year) told me to stay away from the #1 CB......

Cool. I like that you gave me an example.

You did make a good point earlier about a #1 not being locked up on a particular guy with our team. But I tried to say that during pre-snap, anticipate which of our guys will be covered by the #1 and you know where not to go.

My basic thinking on this is that a #1 CB on any of our WRs is a mismatch. I'm really not sure why people think I'm a fool for saying that. On your example with a post, skinny post and an underneath... I tend to think that only 3 targets out is pretty light. A lot of the time, you'd have more. So I guess I can see with only 3, 2 reads isn't much to do. That leads to how I think your example would play out. If you've been directed to not challenge #1, you give it a glance, look to the middle for the TE and probably just check it down. That's faster than taking a full read, not slower. But commonly, there's another read in there.

I think you made the best point against my strategy when you pointed out that if they change coverage--or for that matter, young Biscuit mis-assesses the coverage pre-snap--then you're missing a potentially reasonable option and spending time assessing a bad matchup because #1 didn't end up where he was expected to be.

To your last point, maybe names make my point better. If you have Stephon Gilmore running down the field in man coverage with Kendall Wright, is that really where you want to throw the ball? Sure, Gilmore could slip or trip or get tangled up. But generally, that's a losing proposition. At least that's the way I see it.

Thanks for your detailed analysis.

Pretty good read from Moon Mullin:

http://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/ ... rve-really" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lol, so ridiculous

botfly10 wrote:lol, so ridiculous

lol, what is

This guy?

G08 wrote:This guy?

yes he was ... and I am still thankful today of his days as a productive member of the Bears