Reading this made my blood boil

The latest Bears news and talk

Moderators: wab, RING4CHI, Pagan

User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:06 pm

RichH55 wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:02 am
You do know the turnovers were always coming down Yogi, right?
Well apparently not, considering that I explicitly said that I thought our 2019 defense would get more turnovers than we did in 2018.

My reasoning was that Pagano is known as a blitzing defense, particularly compared to Fangio's far more conservative defense. Typically, blitzing results in more pressure and more pressure should result in more turnovers.

That was my rationale at least. And until Hicks went out, although we weren't on par with the 2018 team with respect to turnovers, we were in the ball park. And as for sacks, we were actually ahead of schedule when Hicks went out.

One weakness to this rationale with respect to Pagano has been exposed by DP and reiterated by me. Pagano apparently likes winning with scheme and trickery rather than just beating the guy in front of you with your front seven. Again, as I've said in the past, if Pagano insists on standing Quinn up and playing him like an OLB, sending either him or Mack or blitzing if we're to send both, we're not making the best use of our personnel. We're much better playing Quinn as a RDE with Mack as a LB and sending both of them all the time they're in there. With Hicks added, it will give fits to any offense every play.

As for that Oakland game, Hicks went out in the first series. The Raiders had 13 yards in 5 carries. The second drive is when they started cramming it down our throats. I think that his absence was compounded by Bilal also being out (he didn't play with his broken hand until the Viking game), and Nick Williams not quite ready to really step in for Akiem.

We final note on Hicks. We were 3-1 when he went down. We then lost the next four games. That right there shows how valuable he was to us.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:16 pm

Well - no -it was always bad reasoning is the thing. As to turnovers at least (certainly didn't say anything on sacks)

The 2019 numbers would have been lower even if Vic stayed and Hicks was healthy - they were simply unsustainable

Surely moving Eddie away from FS didn't help - but they were just always gonna fall

Fumbles recovered - is not a sticky stat year to year for example
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:06 pm

RichH55 wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:16 pm
Well - no -it was always bad reasoning is the thing. As to turnovers at least (certainly didn't say anything on sacks)

The 2019 numbers would have been lower even if Vic stayed and Hicks was healthy - they were simply unsustainable

Surely moving Eddie away from FS didn't help - but they were just always gonna fall

Fumbles recovered - is not a sticky stat year to year for example
I just love it when you tell me what I did and didn't say, particularly considering the multitude of posts I made on the old board.

Just curious. With respect to turnovers, you act like it's mostly luck, that the turnovers in 2018 were artificially high and nothing could be done to approach or exceed that amount. Is that true? Is that how you view turnovers? Could not scheme affect them? Personnel? Could we not have increased our turnovers if we had LT, Reggie White, Deion Sanders, and Ed Reed in their prime? Is that your stance?
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:28 pm

Taking you two old friends out of it for a second....not taking any sides there....

I'd just say that people tend to argue this point to logical extremes that don't exist. There's a large group, a majority in fact, that says "2018 wasn't sustainable for turnovers" and then extrapolates that to excuse everything else related to last years defense setback. It's really frustrating to me because it's just so transparently phony. There are severity/degrees that matter, two things can be true at the same time, etc. Simple caveats to simple thinking that end up being tossed aside on message boards while folks clump into hardened positions.

In this case, both things are true. 2018 was a historic year, and it is certainly not a reasonable expectation to think that it will continue at that same level year over year. That doesn't mean it can't either BTW, it certainly could have, but it in fact did not which in and of itself isn't the end of the world. But you don't write off the sack numbers along with that, those WERE sustainable. And you don't write off the coaching change, that DOES HAVE an impact. And yes, injuries also matter, but I refuse to just blithely write it all off because one guy got hurt! To think that Pagano is free of blame is just absolutely wrong, he's the DC for pete's sake! And his history is, frankly, awful - so there's no reason to give him a free pass until he proves otherwise.

That's where I'm at now. Prove it Chuck. If you do, great, I'll admit I was wrong no big deal. But you don't get any benefit of doubt after posting back to back 30th ranked defenses prior to taking ours over, and then immediately dropping our defense from 1st percentile to 25th percentile in one season. Nope.
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:58 pm

All I know is that with Hicks in the lineup, we had 8 turnovers in 4 games. That extrapolates to 32 for the season. That is at least in the ballpark of the 36 we had in 2018. Without Hicks in the lineup, we only had 9 turnovers for the rest of the season. It certainly appears that the decrease in turnovers can be attributed to his absence.

Same with sacks. With Hicks in the lineup, we had 17 sacks in 4 games. That extrapolates to 68 sacks for the season. That's actually considerably more than the 50 sacks we had in 2018. In 2019, without Hicks in the lineup we only had 15 more sacks the rest of the season and finished with only 32. Again, it certainly appears that Hicks' absence certainly affected this number considerably.

*Note: I'm not including the Green Bay game later in the season where Hicks was playing hurt.
User avatar
Atkins&Rebel
MVP
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:19 pm

Yogi da Bear wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:58 pm
All I know is that with Hicks in the lineup, we had 8 turnovers in 4 games. That extrapolates to 32 for the season. That is at least in the ballpark of the 36 we had in 2018. Without Hicks in the lineup, we only had 9 turnovers for the rest of the season. It certainly appears that the decrease in turnovers can be attributed to his absence.

Same with sacks. With Hicks in the lineup, we had 17 sacks in 4 games. That extrapolates to 68 sacks for the season. That's actually considerably more than the 50 sacks we had in 2018. In 2019, without Hicks in the lineup we only had 15 more sacks the rest of the season and finished with only 32. Again, it certainly appears that Hicks' absence certainly affected this number considerably.

*Note: I'm not including the Green Bay game later in the season where Hicks was playing hurt.
Without Hicks in there, teams were easily able to double Mack and wear him down more. With Hicks, showing too much attention to Mack leaves Hicks free to create havoc with a more direct line to the QB
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:11 am

Hicks is huge, totally agree there. His return is one reason why I don't understand the national hate towards this team, our defense is stacked. And Yogi, turnovers are definitely not just random, you're totally right there.

INT's are a byproduct of QB pressure and Fumbles are a byproduct of aggressive/gang tackling. Not 100%, but the turnovers are HEAVILY influenced by these things. And it's not just any type of QB pressure either, which is where places like PFF fail. If I blitz 6 guys, Erin Rodgers sees it a mile away, and calmly flips the ball over their head to a wide open TE or slanting WR for a nice gain, that's technically a "pressure" but not "good pressure". We got those types of pressures all day long last year! They are soft, manufactured, and not helpful at all. Under Vic we got pressure from 4 or 5, without an easy hot read for the QB to go to!!! So Erin can't just flip the ball for an easy gain, which is why we got SACKS from that pressure.

Here's the stats. In 2018, we pressured the QB 26.7% of the time and we got 50 sacks, 3rd best in the league. In 2019, we pressured the QB almost the same, 25.2% of the time, and yet we fell to the bottom third of the league with just 32 sacks. Is Hicks the reason for this? Possible. It's possible we simply couldn't generate "man up" pressure without him. But Pagano's history makes me wonder - remember he came from Rex Ryan's tree. Those defense relied on overwhelming blitzes (i.e. 46 defense) and chicanery. His goal was to generate a "free rusher" on the QB and blow up the play. Vic's plan is to plan tight man zones and generate pressure with his front 4 generally. So his DB's could see what was happening in front of them (because of playing zone), and when we got home with the front 4 and created pressure they could break aggressively on a rushed/poor throw. It's just fundamentally different approaches to defense.
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 15765
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:53 am

dplank wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:11 am
It's just fundamentally different approaches to defense.
Correct and I am of the opinion Pagano last season was calling defenses more along the lines of what Vic was doing.

Now, hearing some defensive players talk about how it's another year in the scheme we might see more creativity. Personally, I don't want to be dropping Quinn or Mack into coverage, but sometimes you have to keep offenses guessing.

If we have a season (I'm worried we won't) I am fucking stoked to see this front 7 fuck shit up.
Image

First 41 starts:

Drew Brees: 61.2% | 8261 yards | 52 TDs | 37 INTs | 6.60 YPA | 82.2

Mitch Trubisky: 63.4% | 8554 yards | 48 TDs | 29 INTs | 6.7 YPA | 85.8
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:17 am

G08 wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:53 am
dplank wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:11 am
It's just fundamentally different approaches to defense.
Correct and I am of the opinion Pagano last season was calling defenses more along the lines of what Vic was doing.

Now, hearing some defensive players talk about how it's another year in the scheme we might see more creativity. Personally, I don't want to be dropping Quinn or Mack into coverage, but sometimes you have to keep offenses guessing.

If we have a season (I'm worried we won't) I am fucking stoked to see this front 7 fuck shit up.
HELL YEA G08!!!!! LET'S GO BEARS!!!! (I'm feeling pretty good we will after watching EPL, SuperRugby, and MLS do it...let's hope MLB doesn't fuck it up)

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 15765
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:02 pm

dplank wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:17 am
G08 wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:53 am


Correct and I am of the opinion Pagano last season was calling defenses more along the lines of what Vic was doing.

Now, hearing some defensive players talk about how it's another year in the scheme we might see more creativity. Personally, I don't want to be dropping Quinn or Mack into coverage, but sometimes you have to keep offenses guessing.

If we have a season (I'm worried we won't) I am fucking stoked to see this front 7 fuck shit up.
HELL YEA G08!!!!! LET'S GO BEARS!!!! (I'm feeling pretty good we will after watching EPL, SuperRugby, and MLS do it...let's hope MLB doesn't fuck it up)

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Dude I have been trying so fucking hard to not think about football, and it has been working but my Training Camp itch just returned. I need this shit, fucking badly.
Image

First 41 starts:

Drew Brees: 61.2% | 8261 yards | 52 TDs | 37 INTs | 6.60 YPA | 82.2

Mitch Trubisky: 63.4% | 8554 yards | 48 TDs | 29 INTs | 6.7 YPA | 85.8
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:06 pm

G08 wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:53 am
dplank wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:11 am
It's just fundamentally different approaches to defense.
Correct and I am of the opinion Pagano last season was calling defenses more along the lines of what Vic was doing.

Now, hearing some defensive players talk about how it's another year in the scheme we might see more creativity. Personally, I don't want to be dropping Quinn or Mack into coverage, but sometimes you have to keep offenses guessing.

If we have a season (I'm worried we won't) I am fucking stoked to see this front 7 fuck shit up.
This is all very true. It's like the difference between Lovie's Cover 2, where they relied on pressure from the front 4 and played zone facing the QB to go after picks versus the old 46 where they relied on overwhelming pressure up front through scheme and chicanery as DP says.

What I did like from Pagano was how he used Kwit to blitz and attack the LOS. He finished with 3 sacks and 8 TFLs. That was a much better use of him than what Fangio did consistently dropping him into coverage to get burned. Shows Pagano could adapt scheme to fit a player's limitations. I also like how Pagano was willing to send our DBs on occasion, and they would often get free run at the QB. What I didn't like was him dropping Mack into coverage.

What worries me is Pagano's penchant for perhaps over scheming as DP has suggested. With Quinn, Mack, Hicks, and Goldman, RRH or whomever, ANY offense is going to be overwhelmed by that rush. You don't NEED to blitz. You don't need to drop Mack or Quinn into coverage except as a gimmick. You simply overwhelm them with our superior personnel. THAT is why I think it's a huge mistake even trying to stand Quinn up. Let him do what he does. Don't overthink it.

Just a Reiteration of what I've already pointed out for DP: With Hicks in the lineup, we were on pace for 68 SACKS! Not the 32 we finished with in 2019, and considerably more than the 50 we finished with in '18. The impact of the loss of Hicks can't be underestimated.

I'm so psyched to see this defense with Hicks back and the addition of Quinn, if he is used correctly.
User avatar
Z Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:54 am

Hicks is the one who collapses the pocket. Without him, when an edge rusher get to a QB all said QB has to do is step forward to avoid the outside rush. With Hicks in there is nowhere to go and the sack or a rush throw (which leads to INTs) happen. Hicks truly is the lynch pin of the D.
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:24 am

Z Bear wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:54 am
Hicks is the one who collapses the pocket. Without him, when an edge rusher get to a QB all said QB has to do is step forward to avoid the outside rush. With Hicks in there is nowhere to go and the sack or a rush throw (which leads to INTs) happen. Hicks truly is the lynch pin of the D.
I can go along with this thought, but if it's true then how come he doesn't get paid more than Mack? Why isn't he a "Top 20" player in the NFL? I'm not arguing the thought that Hicks is absolutely critical to our defense, but damn if one guy makes the entire thing either work or not work then we have a problem IMO.

I believe Hicks injury and its impact on our defense last year, while huge, is being overstated a bit. And Hicks is my favorite player on the Bears on either side of the ball! It's just "too easy" an excuse, we had other problems as well.
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
User avatar
BreadNCircuses
Journeyman
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:34 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:10 am

dplank wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:24 am
Z Bear wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:54 am
Hicks is the one who collapses the pocket. Without him, when an edge rusher get to a QB all said QB has to do is step forward to avoid the outside rush. With Hicks in there is nowhere to go and the sack or a rush throw (which leads to INTs) happen. Hicks truly is the lynch pin of the D.
I can go along with this thought, but if it's true then how come he doesn't get paid more than Mack? Why isn't he a "Top 20" player in the NFL? I'm not arguing the thought that Hicks is absolutely critical to our defense, but damn if one guy makes the entire thing either work or not work then we have a problem IMO.

I believe Hicks injury and its impact on our defense last year, while huge, is being overstated a bit. And Hicks is my favorite player on the Bears on either side of the ball! It's just "too easy" an excuse, we had other problems as well.
I believe the loss of Hicks is analogous to the loss of Tommie Harris in 2006. Losing the interior threat took both defenses from historically good to upper level but not elite.
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:48 am

OK, I'm in with that. IMO, there's a second thought that has to go along with this one then. We have to invest more in our DL if one guy can set our defense back in such a way. Build the lines! And PAY HICKS
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:14 pm

dplank wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:24 am
Z Bear wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:54 am
Hicks is the one who collapses the pocket. Without him, when an edge rusher get to a QB all said QB has to do is step forward to avoid the outside rush. With Hicks in there is nowhere to go and the sack or a rush throw (which leads to INTs) happen. Hicks truly is the lynch pin of the D.
I can go along with this thought, but if it's true then how come he doesn't get paid more than Mack? Why isn't he a "Top 20" player in the NFL? I'm not arguing the thought that Hicks is absolutely critical to our defense, but damn if one guy makes the entire thing either work or not work then we have a problem IMO.

I believe Hicks injury and its impact on our defense last year, while huge, is being overstated a bit. And Hicks is my favorite player on the Bears on either side of the ball! It's just "too easy" an excuse, we had other problems as well.
I think that Tommie's a pretty good analogy, but I believe that Hicks is even more important than that. There's a better analogy out there. Hicks not only collapses the pocket, but the stuffs the LOS in the run game and keeps blockers off our two middle linebackers. My better analogy? Danimal or maybe Haloti Ngata of the Ravens' defenses.

DP, the fact that Hicks isn't ranked higher as a player is a travesty. For some reason, he gets absolutely no respect from media or other players for some reason (maybe jealousy?). The guy is a bona fide BEAST!

I think that last year was also more than Hicks though. There was Bilal with the broken hand. He didn't play in weeks 3-5 and 7 and played the rest of the season with a broken hand. It took Nick Williams a bit to acclimate and he's just not Akiem. But he proved his worth with a new contract with the Lions. RRH simply isn't the same type of player.

Yes, he should get compensated better than he is. And he will be.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:37 am

The 2018 numbers were simply high - as you could see when even the cherry picked numbers only get you "in the range" (i.e. Less)

And certainly some of Turnovers is Luck (NOT ALL) - so, so many factors of course

Take Fumbles for example - Forced Fumbles v. Recovered Fumbles are notoriously "unsticky" year to year

You can force 10 a year and your recovery rate can really be all over the place

The 2018 numbers (with a fantastic defense and great Hicks) were simply high in that regard

Now - with better coaching, Eddie Jackson in the right position, and Hicks healthy - would they beat 2019's numbers?

Probably.

But they would have still been short of 2018
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:07 pm

RichH55 wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:37 am
The 2018 numbers were simply high - as you could see when even the cherry picked numbers only get you "in the range" (i.e. Less)

And certainly some of Turnovers is Luck (NOT ALL) - so, so many factors of course

Take Fumbles for example - Forced Fumbles v. Recovered Fumbles are notoriously "unsticky" year to year

You can force 10 a year and your recovery rate can really be all over the place

The 2018 numbers (with a fantastic defense and great Hicks) were simply high in that regard

Now - with better coaching, Eddie Jackson in the right position, and Hicks healthy - would they beat 2019's numbers?

Probably.

But they would have still been short of 2018
Rich, you act like our turnovers in 2018 were almost legendary and the result primarily of luck. While luck plays variable role in turnovers, it generally takes a backseat to scheme and personnel, and our 2018 while good were far from being "legendary," unable to be reproduced. For example, in 2019, the Steelers had 38 turnovers and the Patriots had 36.

But let's examine whether turnovers can be sustainable over time with scheme and personnel as opposed to simply luck. I'll start with our very own Lovie Smith who really emphasized turnovers.

Lovie became the Bear coach in 2004, and we finished 16th in the league with 29 turnovers. In 2005, we finished 6th with 34. In 2006, we finished 3rd with 44 (so much for that "legendary" 36 number in 2018). 2007, 8th with 33. 2008, 2nd with 32. 2009, 14th with 28. 2010, 3rd with 35. 2011, 6th with 31. 2012, 1st with 44 (again dwarfing our 2018 numbers). So with the exception of his first year where we had 29 turnovers, we had 30 plus turnovers every year and dwarfed our 36 2018 turnovers twice with 44.

Now let's see if turnovers can follow a particular coach from one team to another by examining Buddy Ryan. Let's start in '83 when Buddy was beginning to coalesce the personnel to run his system. In '83, the Bears finished 15th with 38 turnovers (again so much for that 36 2018 number). In 1984, we finished 16th with 34. In 1985 we finished first with 54 (now that's approaching "legendary" range). In 1986 without Buddy, we slipped to 3rd with 47. And in 1987, two years removed from Buddy, we dropped drastically to 28th with only 24 turnovers. Meanwhile, the Eagles in Buddy's first year in '86 finished 14th with 36. In 1987, the Eagles finished 1st with 48. In '88, they finished 2nd with 44. In '89 the finished first with 56. In 1990, they dropped to 16th with 30. And in '91, they popped back to first with 48. In '93, he joined the Oilers as DC and the Oilers finished 2nd with 43 turnovers, while the Eagles dropped to 8th with 35. In '94, he became head coach of the Cardinals and they finished 4th with 36 while the Oilers dropped to 20th with 26. In '95, his final year coaching, the Cardinals finished first with 42.

So it seems that while there were considerably more turnovers in the eighties and nineties than today, 36 turnovers on the year doesn't seem like it's so far out of sight now as not to be duplicated. In fact it was reached twice just last year. And it also certainly appears that scheme and coaching and personnel plays a considerable role in turnovers. Lovie Smith was able to maintain a turnover range over 30. And Buddy Ryan proved that the ability to cause turnovers and follow a coach from team (Bears) to team (Eagles) to team(Oilers) to team(Cardinals).

As such, I don't think it was at all as "certain" that those 36 turnovers in 2018 couldn't have been surpassed by the Bears as you would like everybody to believe. Of course, speaking in hindsight, it certainly appears more "certain" than speaking before hand. I'm not going to say that you never said anything beforehand, as I don't presume to know every post you've made (as you do to me), but I certainly don't remember you saying anything before hand.
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:40 pm

This is an absolutely great post Yogi
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:01 pm

No need for hindsight though

All the articles about the Bears turnovers due to regress were posted PRE 2019 season.

I know Yogi ignores that - but this isn't hindsight bias

For instance in 2018 the Bears had 27 INT - and the next highest team was 21 INT

Highest - HIGHEST - in 2019 was 25 . Prince had 3 INT in 2018 - his highest ever, etc.

For a bit more perspective - 3rd most EACH year - UNDER 20 INT


And that was putting aside that there was going to be a new DC which generally isn't a great harbinger for a Defense (Losing a Coach due to him being excellent is NOT usually grounds for addition by subtraction)

Hell you could have had 22 INT in 2018 and led the league (as the Bears) - and that would have been a 5 INT drop by the Bears



2017 Bears (No Mack) had 8 INT and were 30th in that category. Bears were Top 10 in preventing Scoring on D that year mind you

Highest INT in 2017 - 22 INT

Highest INT in 2016 - 18 INT


I know bringing up 2016-2019 numbers isn't as pertinent as 1988 - but I'm trying folks!




Your number doesn't have to be legendary to come down - that's not a good point.

But at least we are brining Buddy Ryan and 1988 into this - as if this makes sense for the discussion (Hat tip: It does not)
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:35 pm

It most certainly does. It shows that turnovers will follow a coach and his scheme. And Lovie shows that a particular range of turnovers can be expected over time within a particular scheme. Or maybe you're arguing that turnovers now have somehow been more determined by luck than they used to be? Is that it?

And it's not like our 2018 numbers were out of sight either. Both New England and Pitt matched or exceeded them this year. Wonder why you stopped at 2016 Rich? Could that be because the Panthers had 39 in '15? Why do you want to ignore the 44 turnovers we had in '12?

Fact of the matter is that while the 36 turnovers we had in '18 was damn good, it most certainly wasn't unattainable.

And I guess by you mentioning all the "articles" that suggested our turnover rate would go down before hand, that means that you yourself advocate that before hand. You're just taking what those articles said and adopting for yourself after the fact. Typical Rich.
User avatar
dplank
MVP
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:14 pm

Yogi's post made it abundantly clear that coaching, players, scheme...drive turnovers and that turnovers are not primarily driven by luck. Fumbles recovered, sure. But you get more fumbles recovered if you force more fumbles to begin with! And you get more INT's if you are disrupting the QB in meaningful ways (sacks, 'real' pressure, tips, etc).

Is luck a factor? Yes. Absolutely it is. But good teams and good coaches maximize your opportunities and essentially 'make your own luck'. And while they may go up or down one year or another based on how that ball bounces, they shouldn't be falling off a cliff from one year to the next - which is what we saw from Chuckles.
Chuck Pagano's defensive rankings in 6 years with Indy: 26th, 20th, 11th, 26th, 30th, and 30th.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:36 pm

If only we had some sort of Track record on Pagano Dplank!!!

But no - the Comps he used didn't apply in ALMOST any way to the 2019 v 2018 - and the data was criminally old

Buddy Ryan was literally not alive for either of these seasons.

It's almost like I went out of my way to point that out and give the ACTUAL pertinent data


The 2017 Turnovers were a TON less than either 2018 or 2019 BTW. (Probably somewhat unlucky!)

2018 - you really got an uptick in Luck - 2019 EVEN WITH VIC - would have almost absolutely been lower (even Yogi's cherry picked 4 game data set had us with a decent chunk LESS turnovers)

Teams - they pay Offensive Coaches too - they will make adjustments too year to year


Every article pointed out - again PRE 2019 - that the 2018 numbers were a bit high in terms of turnovers -they were very likely to Fall

Fall off a cliff? Fair enough (I've sided with you on Pagano) Not the argument in the least here

2018 just happened to be career highs in INT for BOTH Prince and Fuller - You have what 14 years between the two of them?
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:57 pm

Rich, you need to learn definitions of words you use. "Cherry pick" means to select the best or most desirable. I didn't do that. I picked the games that Hicks actually played in. The fact that they also happened to coincide with the most desirable performance is because Hicks was playing in them. I didn't "Cherry Pick" isolated games due to the particular results in those games, and they weren't one here and one there. I picked the four games at the beginning of the season that Hicks happened to play. From those games, with Hicks in the lineup, we were on schedule for 32 turnovers and 68 sacks. Simple fact.

As Lovie and Buddy, you still don't get it or you're being intentionally troll like obtuse. The whole point of bringing them up was to show that turnovers can be sustained with a particular scheme and coach and personnel from year to year (Lovie showed us that) and can be transmuted from team to team to team by a coach and his scheme (Buddy shows that). Whether dead or alive, he still proved it.

Are you seriously arguing that somehow in the last three years turnovers have become the result solely because of luck rather than scheme (as Buddy and Lovie both proved)? Do you seriously contend that having Peanut in his prime on last year's team wouldn't have helped our fumble recovery stat line?

And again, you're pointing to articles that projected the decrease in turnovers. I guess you yourself didn't publicly proclaim it on the board though, huh? I certainly don't remember you saying a word about it. Incidentally, did those same articles project that Hicks would be injured after only four games?
User avatar
Atkins&Rebel
MVP
Posts: 1209
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:21 am

Sometimes, Turnovers are due to personnel playing excellent. Urlacher's ability forced many offenses to scheme plays to the outside. Charles Tillman helped to inflate Lovie's turnover stats with his patented 'Peanut Punch".

Sometimes, Turnovers are due to offensive incompetence: From bad scheme, to WR and QB not on same page, to just bad execution, to fumble prone players

Most of the time, Turnovers are the result of putting pressure on the QB and forcing him to make bad decisions. Buddy had the mentality that he was going to wreck the QB every play.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:56 am

The Buddy Ryan thing has absolutely nothing to do with this. That's the thing - It's dumb in this context

(The only way it would be warranted if you somehow think Chuck Pagano coming in is akin to Buddy Ryan - Which I am like 99.9% sure you do Not believe, correct?)

"we were on schedule for 32 turnovers and 68 sacks. Simple fact."

WHICH IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF TURNOVERS WE HAD IN 2018.

Do you get why the 2018 numbers were inflated? (aside from the Expert (not just me beating up on dumbness here) articles pre 2019 season - Again PRE)


I absolutely assumed turnovers would drop - and that was before Vic was gone
(This btw can be from a TON of factors - One of which is actually injury luck....and while I don't think it was the 2019 team was like Crazy injury prone or something - but the 2018 version was particularly healthy)


The Bears INT's in 2018 was the highest in the league since 2013 (INCLUDING 2019)

2013 Seattle had 28 INT - 2014 still a very quality defense had 13 INT



Anyone who thought the 2019 turnover numbers were going to be the same or better than 2018 - just wasn't paying attention
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:40 pm

Got it Rich.

You obviously think that the coaching and scheme designed to create turnovers like Lovie Smith and Buddy Ryan were known for is a thing of the distant (and in Lovie's case, much more recent) past, and that now turnovers result completely from luck.

You're an idiot.
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:35 pm

So then Chuck Pagano is Buddy Ryan

Brilliant as always

Oh - just because you are taking a victory lap for stupidity

Did your theory hold up? Since 2019 has actually happened

They get more turnovers??!?!?!
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Player of the Month
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:28 am

RichH55 wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:35 pm
So then Chuck Pagano is Buddy Ryan

Brilliant as always
There you again Rich--losing yet another argument and LYING to cover it up. SOP with you. NEVER did I compare Chuck Pagano to Buddy Ryan. I DEFY you to show me one place where I said anything remotely like that.

This started with you basically saying that everybody KNEW the Bears wouldn't match their 2018 turnovers in 2019 because those 2018 turnovers were mostly luck and so high as to be practically unattainable. So I researched it.

The first thing I found that while our 2018 turnovers were good, they were hardly unattainable as not one but two teams matched or exceeded them in 2019. If the Steelers defense could exceed our 2018 turnovers, our Bear defense most certainly could have. In fact, our 36 turnovers in 2018 has been exceeded many, many times throughout history--by a whole helluva lot.

Then I wanted to see if turnovers could be sustained over time by a coach, his scheme, and personnel, or if they were mostly luck as you suggest. I used two coaches I know who really emphasized turnovers--Buddy Ryan and Lovie Smith. Lovie proved that turnovers are sustainable over time with one team and Buddy proved that they can be sustained by one coach from team to team to team. No where did I say that Chuck Pagano was Buddy Ryan. NO WHERE!

Then I looked to see what went wrong last season, so I looked at our stats with Hicks in the line up and found we were on pace for 32 turnovers and 68 sacks. And you LIE again, claiming a "cherry picked" stats, as though I went through and selectively chose only our games with the most sacks and turnovers, when all I really did was select stats from games where Hicks was healthy and played.

And through it all, I come to find out, or at least strongly suspect, that even though you claim that everybody knew we wouldn't match our 2018 turnovers, you yourself never expressly said so. Instead, for that, you're relying on articles that said so, and you're relying on them after the fact.

You really are a deceitful little fuck aren't.

I'm done. Have the last word. I tire of arguing with a twit who continually lies and distorts what is being said.

Have fun....
RichH55
Assistant Coach
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Re: Reading this made my blood boil

Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:41 pm

It's the only way brining up Buddy Ryan could possibly matter here is the thing (And I did ask - since you seem obsessed with bringing him up for no reason)

The 2018 numbers were high - they were always coming down.

I'm sorry this is too hard for you to understand


"So I researched it."


Maybe start with the actual pertinent data? Was there not a highlight video of 1 play to watch?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!


Here is just one of MANY things on Turnovers PRIOR to the 2019 Season:
Turnovers
Finally, let’s look at teams who forced a similar number of turnovers as the 2018 Bears, who had 36. This was actually the first time since 2015 that anybody in the NFL forced 35 or more, but 16 teams overall reached that mark between 2008 and 2014.

Average turnovers: 38.2
Average following turnovers: 26.9
Change: 11.3
# teams with more turnovers following year: 0
# teams top 5 in turnovers following year: 4
# teams top 10 in turnovers following year: 8
# teams below average in turnovers following year: 5
Here we see a bit more of a drop-off. Fewer teams remained at or near the top of the league – though 1/4 were still top 5 and 1/2 top 10 – and the overall average rank the next year was 13th, which isn’t that far from the NFL average (16th-17th for a 32 team league). It makes sense that turnover numbers would fluctuate more than other statistics, as we’re talking smaller sample sizes with fewer turnover plays than points scored or total plays (which all factor into DVOA).



But...but.....Buddy Ryan?!?!?!?

Return to “Halas Hall”