Update: Waldron is bad again

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7874
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 705 times
Been thanked: 1353 times



Interesting thread with Nate Tice chiming in
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 341 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:40 pm

Interesting thread with Nate Tice chiming in
I don't know nearly enough to be sure but would definitely agree it matches what I'm seeing on the field.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
Ditka’s dictaphone
Head Coach
Posts: 4503
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 1024 times
Been thanked: 1046 times

Personally, I believe no matter who your OC is, if your Oline can’t block then the scheme is irrelevant.

Any scheme relies on the QB having time to throw, the RB having a seam to run through and the receivers having time to get open.
(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural

Image
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8839
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 630 times
Been thanked: 738 times

Moriarty wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:33 pm
malk wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 6:20 am I'm still salty after the loss last night so I get it but it's still a bit tiresome to read plays that come off = good and plays that don't come off = bad.

We beg for an OC that will be a little creative and then crucify him any time something that isn't the most obvious choice goes wrong.
Generally speaking, I very much agree with this. People knee-jerk react to results, without a coherent philosophy.

However, if you take this philosophy to the extreme, you would say "there's no such thing as a bad play call - there's only ones that happened to work and those that happened not to" and I don't think that's at all true.

I don't think its true either

I have also yet to see a message board where its not pretty darn close to the truth though ....have you?
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7674
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 997 times

RichH55 wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2024 11:05 pm
Moriarty wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2024 4:33 pm

Generally speaking, I very much agree with this. People knee-jerk react to results, without a coherent philosophy.

However, if you take this philosophy to the extreme, you would say "there's no such thing as a bad play call - there's only ones that happened to work and those that happened not to" and I don't think that's at all true.

I don't think its true either

I have also yet to see a message board where its not pretty darn close to the truth though ....have you?

No, not at all.
All 3 of us agree - people mostly just go off results.

But, just to be clear - I am saying "that faulty reasoning aside, this play still actually deserved the criticism".
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 341 times

Moriarty wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:49 am
RichH55 wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2024 11:05 pm

I don't think its true either

I have also yet to see a message board where its not pretty darn close to the truth though ....have you?

No, not at all.
All 3 of us agree - people mostly just go off results.

But, just to be clear - I am saying "that faulty reasoning aside, this play still actually deserved the criticism".
The fade was worse than the handoff to Kramer imo. But there is an argument not to get cute with anything until you're established, not because they're worse plays per se, but because the fallout of them not coming off is such a distraction it isn't worth it lol.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
crueltyabc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5213
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 256 times

I think Waldron made a few bad calls but I think this recent loss was more about Caleb in the first half and oline in the 3rd quarter. I remain hopeful that Waldron is a good hire.
xyt in the discord chats
Magilla_Gorilla
Player of the Month
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 203 times

Jesus Christ. Guess I shouldn't be surprised - if the Head Coach won't take accountability (and doubles down on stupid) why shouldn't the OC?

User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30831
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 2493 times

I mean if it works no one cares. It's only stupid because the handoff was fucked.
Magilla_Gorilla
Player of the Month
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 203 times

wab wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:38 pm I mean if it works no one cares. It's only stupid because the handoff was fucked.
No, it was stupid because of the game situation. Yes winning allows you to overlook a lot but it still would have been a stupid call even if he hadn’t fumbled.

You give it to a fat kid when you’re running up the score and want to embarrass the other team, not when you’re trailing in the 4th quarter.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 30831
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 2493 times

Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 4:28 pm
wab wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:38 pm I mean if it works no one cares. It's only stupid because the handoff was fucked.
No, it was stupid because of the game situation. Yes winning allows you to overlook a lot but it still would have been a stupid call even if he hadn’t fumbled.

You give it to a fat kid when you’re running up the score and want to embarrass the other team, not when you’re trailing in the 4th quarter.
So if it works and they score are there multiple message board pages about how stupid it was and endless tweets and podcasts about why it was a terrible call?

No. It would have been a fun play that got widely celebrated.
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 4129
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 738 times

wab wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 5:37 pm
Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 4:28 pm

No, it was stupid because of the game situation. Yes winning allows you to overlook a lot but it still would have been a stupid call even if he hadn’t fumbled.

You give it to a fat kid when you’re running up the score and want to embarrass the other team, not when you’re trailing in the 4th quarter.
So if it works and they score are there multiple message board pages about how stupid it was and endless tweets and podcasts about why it was a terrible call?

No. It would have been a fun play that got widely celebrated.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd still call it dumb, because it's dumb to give the ball to the fat guy when you aren't holding a big lead.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 1412 times
Been thanked: 265 times

thunderspirit wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 5:53 pm I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd still call it dumb, because it's dumb to give the ball to the fat guy when you aren't holding a big lead.
Yup. "Twas dumb.

I do think people are overly obsessing about the fine details of a game that was decided by a fluke play in the last seconds, though.
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7674
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 997 times

wab wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 5:37 pm
Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 4:28 pm

No, it was stupid because of the game situation. Yes winning allows you to overlook a lot but it still would have been a stupid call even if he hadn’t fumbled.

You give it to a fat kid when you’re running up the score and want to embarrass the other team, not when you’re trailing in the 4th quarter.
So if it works and they score are there multiple message board pages about how stupid it was and endless tweets and podcasts about why it was a terrible call?

No. It would have been a fun play that got widely celebrated.
Moriarty wrote: That's very true.

But it's also a serious knock on the average person's ability to evaluate, rather than a good reason to let <insert new name into a prior quote: Waldron> off the hook for his mistakes.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8023
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 2816 times

Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:18 pm Jesus Christ. Guess I shouldn't be surprised - if the Head Coach won't take accountability (and doubles down on stupid) why shouldn't the OC?

That's a bit misleading from Lieser. This is what Waldron actually said when he fielded several questions about it:
“Every play call that doesn’t work out, you go back and look at it and see ‘Was it the best call in that situation?’ What could I have done better as a play-caller? What situations could I have put those guys in?' But going back to the play, I have all the confidence in the world in our players. It’s something we’ve repped and worked on. It came up in the moment, as a third-and-one call. It didn’t work out.”
...

“Like I said, I felt confident in the moment in that call and it didn’t work out. When calls don’t work out, there’s gonna be criticism. I’ll always look inwardly first and then move on to the next one, and we’re on to Arizona.”
...

“I think there’s always valid criticism when things don’t work out. Like I said, we’ll work inwardly. We’ll wrap our arms around each other and work to look forward and execute better and call better plays the next situation that that arises.”
...

Asked if he would call the same play if he had the call to do over.

“In that moment? Yeah, I was confident. I had trust in it. And looking back at it, all the things that go into any call throughout the course of the game, whether it’s early calls that lead to stuff not working, or calls in the middle, calls in the end, critical calls — I always assess those and go forward.”
So he basically expressed confidence in his players and stated that he always reflects on calls that don't work out.
User avatar
Ditka’s dictaphone
Head Coach
Posts: 4503
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 1024 times
Been thanked: 1046 times

Heinz D. wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 6:00 pm
thunderspirit wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 5:53 pm I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd still call it dumb, because it's dumb to give the ball to the fat guy when you aren't holding a big lead.
Yup. "Twas dumb.

I do think people are overly obsessing about the fine details of a game that was decided by a fluke play in the last seconds, though.
It’s not that.
It’s the 4th game in 2seasons when the Bears were projected to win by more than 90% deep in the 4th quarter and lost it.
It’s the failure to call a time out
It’s the failure to defend the 2nd from last play.

But moreover, it’s the lack of ownership by the head coach.

Poor leadership, poor game awareness and it’s clearly not the first time.

There’s no suggestion he’s learning and this is Y3
(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural

Image
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 1412 times
Been thanked: 265 times

Ditka’s dictaphone wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 7:43 pm It’s not that.
It’s the 4th game in 2seasons when the Bears were projected to win by more than 90% deep in the 4th quarter and lost it.
It’s the failure to call a time out
It’s the failure to defend the 2nd from last play.

But moreover, it’s the lack of ownership by the head coach.

Poor leadership, poor game awareness and it’s clearly not the first time.

There’s no suggestion he’s learning and this is Y3
It's EXACTLY "that".

Now, will Eberflus survive the season? Maybe not. If he doesn't--will it be deserved? Probably.

What about Waldron? Well...I've made my disapproval of his comic hijinks well known.

I'm not of the mind set all is lost, though. And I firmly believe that, if not for a loss on a fluke play, many here would be with me on that,
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
o-pus #40 in B major
Head Coach
Posts: 2894
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Earth
Has thanked: 2794 times
Been thanked: 293 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 7:06 pm
Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:18 pm Jesus Christ. Guess I shouldn't be surprised - if the Head Coach won't take accountability (and doubles down on stupid) why shouldn't the OC?

That's a bit misleading from Lieser. This is what Waldron actually said when he fielded several questions about it:
“Every play call that doesn’t work out, you go back and look at it and see ‘Was it the best call in that situation?’ What could I have done better as a play-caller? What situations could I have put those guys in?' But going back to the play, I have all the confidence in the world in our players. It’s something we’ve repped and worked on. It came up in the moment, as a third-and-one call. It didn’t work out.”
...

“Like I said, I felt confident in the moment in that call and it didn’t work out. When calls don’t work out, there’s gonna be criticism. I’ll always look inwardly first and then move on to the next one, and we’re on to Arizona.”
...

“I think there’s always valid criticism when things don’t work out. Like I said, we’ll work inwardly. We’ll wrap our arms around each other and work to look forward and execute better and call better plays the next situation that that arises.”
...

Asked if he would call the same play if he had the call to do over.

“In that moment? Yeah, I was confident. I had trust in it. And looking back at it, all the things that go into any call throughout the course of the game, whether it’s early calls that lead to stuff not working, or calls in the middle, calls in the end, critical calls — I always assess those and go forward.”
So he basically expressed confidence in his players and stated that he always reflects on calls that don't work out.
Dammit I accidentally thanked you HRS!

But thanks for pointing out his stonewalling via cliche - he should get into politics.
There is a GM named Poles
Who has a clear set of goals
He’s rebuilt his team
So Bears’ fans can dream
Of winning some more Super Bowls

- HRS
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8023
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 2816 times

Sure it's cliched, but what more do people want?

He said:
  • He trusts his players.
    (Showing loyalty to his players as a coach should. He knows Kramer in particular will be hurting.)
  • In the moment he thought it was a good call.
    (Being honest. He's hardly going to say he thought it was a bad play but he called it anyway.)
  • It didn't work out so he excepts there will be criticism and that it's perfectly valid.
    (Acknowledging the criticism and accepting it.)
  • He'll self-analyse and look to call a better play in similar situations in future.
    (Pointing out what coaches do and acknowledging the need for self improvement.)
  • As an offense they'll work at executing better.
    (Pointing out the obvious, that the execution was flawed and the players need to do a better job too, and he'll work with them on that.)
What he didn't say:
  • He'd call the same play again if he got a chance to do it over.
I'm not defending either the way he prepared his players coming off a bye week or his play calling during the game, but I am pushing back against a mistruth being put out there by an experienced beat reporter who should know better than to spread a false narrative around what was said at a presser.

The media frenzy has gone way over the top. They're dishonestly fanning the flames and fans are falling for it. Worst of all it's one massive distraction from what should really matter: the game against the Cardinals this Sunday and how the team is going to respond.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 1302 times
Been thanked: 239 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 7:06 pm
Magilla_Gorilla wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:18 pm Jesus Christ. Guess I shouldn't be surprised - if the Head Coach won't take accountability (and doubles down on stupid) why shouldn't the OC?

That's a bit misleading from Lieser. This is what Waldron actually said when he fielded several questions about it:
“Every play call that doesn’t work out, you go back and look at it and see ‘Was it the best call in that situation?’ What could I have done better as a play-caller? What situations could I have put those guys in?' But going back to the play, I have all the confidence in the world in our players. It’s something we’ve repped and worked on. It came up in the moment, as a third-and-one call. It didn’t work out.”
...

“Like I said, I felt confident in the moment in that call and it didn’t work out. When calls don’t work out, there’s gonna be criticism. I’ll always look inwardly first and then move on to the next one, and we’re on to Arizona.”
...

“I think there’s always valid criticism when things don’t work out. Like I said, we’ll work inwardly. We’ll wrap our arms around each other and work to look forward and execute better and call better plays the next situation that that arises.”
...

Asked if he would call the same play if he had the call to do over.

“In that moment? Yeah, I was confident. I had trust in it. And looking back at it, all the things that go into any call throughout the course of the game, whether it’s early calls that lead to stuff not working, or calls in the middle, calls in the end, critical calls — I always assess those and go forward.”
So he basically expressed confidence in his players and stated that he always reflects on calls that don't work out.
Waldum would use Kramer again..\?

So he'd suck like a fat girl on Prom night
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 341 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 9:53 pm Sure it's cliched, but what more do people want?

He said:
  • He trusts his players.
    (Showing loyalty to his players as a coach should. He knows Kramer in particular will be hurting.)
  • In the moment he thought it was a good call.
    (Being honest. He's hardly going to say he thought it was a bad play but he called it anyway.)
  • It didn't work out so he excepts there will be criticism and that it's perfectly valid.
    (Acknowledging the criticism and accepting it.)
  • He'll self-analyse and look to call a better play in similar situations in future.
    (Pointing out what coaches do and acknowledging the need for self improvement.)
  • As an offense they'll work at executing better.
    (Pointing out the obvious, that the execution was flawed and the players need to do a better job too, and he'll work with them on that.)
What he didn't say:
  • He'd call the same play again if he got a chance to do it over.
I'm not defending either the way he prepared his players coming off a bye week or his play calling during the game, but I am pushing back against a mistruth being put out there by an experienced beat reporter who should know better than to spread a false narrative around what was said at a presser.

The media frenzy has gone way over the top. They're dishonestly fanning the flames and fans are falling for it. Worst of all it's one massive distraction from what should really matter: the game against the Cardinals this Sunday and how the team is going to respond.
Princess Bride meme but for media/fan understanding of "accountability".

And even on the call itself, if your offensive line is goosed by injuries you might, reasonably, think to go a bit of a trick play. I didn't like the fade on 1st down (slight caveat that putting a throw on tape could have benefits down the line but that's me being incredibly generous!) but if it was so easy and obvious to score with a "normal" run why did we fail on 2nd down?

Somewhat separately, I think there's something funky going on with the win % projections people are quoting, I'm getting a whiff of mathfuckery to be honest (if anyone has reqd a piece on them please link it!). E.g. what was the Commanders win percentages before Swift's score? In the sense that if theirs was really high then, were they about to throw away a 90% chance of winning before we threw away a 98% chance? Now thar might be true but my gut tells me that something essential isn't being captured. I might ask some maths buddies to give me a sense check tbh...

Edit: to clarify on the win % thing, that doesn't take away from the need to close games out.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
Ditka’s dictaphone
Head Coach
Posts: 4503
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 1024 times
Been thanked: 1046 times

Theirs was high before swift scored, I remember checking it at some point in the 4th and it was 90.1%. That was a good 10 mins before the end, a lot can happen.

The bears had a 98% chance of victory with 6 seconds left. Should have been 1 play, they gave them 2

But it’s “shoulda coulda woulda”. Good team close games out.
(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural

Image
User avatar
Ditka’s dictaphone
Head Coach
Posts: 4503
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 1024 times
Been thanked: 1046 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 9:53 pm Sure it's cliched, but what more do people want?

He said:
  • He trusts his players.
    (Showing loyalty to his players as a coach should. He knows Kramer in particular will be hurting.)
  • In the moment he thought it was a good call.
    (Being honest. He's hardly going to say he thought it was a bad play but he called it anyway.)
  • It didn't work out so he excepts there will be criticism and that it's perfectly valid.
    (Acknowledging the criticism and accepting it.)
  • He'll self-analyse and look to call a better play in similar situations in future.
    (Pointing out what coaches do and acknowledging the need for self improvement.)
  • As an offense they'll work at executing better.
    (Pointing out the obvious, that the execution was flawed and the players need to do a better job too, and he'll work with them on that.)
What he didn't say:
  • He'd call the same play again if he got a chance to do it over.
I'm not defending either the way he prepared his players coming off a bye week or his play calling during the game, but I am pushing back against a mistruth being put out there by an experienced beat reporter who should know better than to spread a false narrative around what was said at a presser.

The media frenzy has gone way over the top. They're dishonestly fanning the flames and fans are falling for it. Worst of all it's one massive distraction from what should really matter: the game against the Cardinals this Sunday and how the team is going to respond.
It’s the comment about the second to last play that has done for Flus.

That was the game. Defend the sidelines and it’s game over. Let them out of bounds and they get another play.

It was a gross error by a defensive genius which most of the players saw. Even Caleb saw it.

So he should own it, not “I’m not concerned about that”.
That’s a glaring error a complete misjudgement. We all do it. Just accept it. To not be concerned about it means he’s happy for the same thing to happen again.
(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural

Image
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8839
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 630 times
Been thanked: 738 times

thunderspirit wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 5:53 pm
wab wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 5:37 pm

So if it works and they score are there multiple message board pages about how stupid it was and endless tweets and podcasts about why it was a terrible call?

No. It would have been a fun play that got widely celebrated.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd still call it dumb, because it's dumb to give the ball to the fat guy when you aren't holding a big lead.
The Steelers and later Jerome Bettis might disagree:)
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5672
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 584 times
Been thanked: 950 times

wab wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:38 pm I mean if it works no one cares. It's only stupid because the handoff was fucked.
Not only does no one care everyone is talking about how awesome the play was.

I don’t think it was the best play but not crucifying him over that call. CW was missing a ton of throws in the first. That’s a bigger issue to me.
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 4129
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
Has thanked: 799 times
Been thanked: 738 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 9:05 am
wab wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:38 pm I mean if it works no one cares. It's only stupid because the handoff was fucked.
Not only does no one care everyone is talking about how awesome the play was.

I don’t think it was the best play but not crucifying him over that call. CW was missing a ton of throws in the first. That’s a bigger issue to me.
Williams did not have a good game for three and a half quarters, and that is indeed a bigger overall issue than the Kramer fumble play.

But that doesn't make the Kramer handoff a good play. You use that when you're up by 14 with four minutes left in the 4th, not when you're trying to take the lead.
KFFL refugee.

dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
:shocked:
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6121
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 698 times
Been thanked: 646 times

It's more concerning that the team, which had a bye week to prepare, was so incredibly flat for 3-1/2 quarters. Waldron's game plan strategy wasn't working at all but he chose to not adjust for a long time in the game. Caleb was also off and no allowances were made to shorten up routes and get him, the WRs, and the TEs/RBs in sync passing. The Bears had Mr. Money short-yardage back (RoJo, #1 in the NFL inside the 5 yard line) but chose to get cutsie and it bit them. Then Waldron eventually got around to blaming Caleb for the hand-off. He won't be winning people over in Chicago.
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 341 times

Grizzled wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 11:40 am It's more concerning that the team, which had a bye week to prepare, was so incredibly flat for 3-1/2 quarters. Waldron's game plan strategy wasn't working at all but he chose to not adjust for a long time in the game. Caleb was also off and no allowances were made to shorten up routes and get him, the WRs, and the TEs/RBs in sync passing. The Bears had Mr. Money short-yardage back (RoJo, #1 in the NFL inside the 5 yard line) but chose to get cutsie and it bit them. Then Waldron eventually got around to blaming Caleb for the hand-off. He won't be winning people over in Chicago.
Don't most teams, players, coaches etc. dislike the bye and see it as a disadvantage?
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7674
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 526 times
Been thanked: 997 times

malk wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 11:51 am
Grizzled wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 11:40 am It's more concerning that the team, which had a bye week to prepare, was so incredibly flat for 3-1/2 quarters. Waldron's game plan strategy wasn't working at all but he chose to not adjust for a long time in the game. Caleb was also off and no allowances were made to shorten up routes and get him, the WRs, and the TEs/RBs in sync passing. The Bears had Mr. Money short-yardage back (RoJo, #1 in the NFL inside the 5 yard line) but chose to get cutsie and it bit them. Then Waldron eventually got around to blaming Caleb for the hand-off. He won't be winning people over in Chicago.
Don't most teams, players, coaches etc. dislike the bye and see it as a disadvantage?
I don't think that's true at all.

Don't see anything newer right now, but
From 2008 - 2012 season:

Winning % After a Bye Week: .541 (85-72-3)
Teams win 54% coming off a bye (vs 50% of the time, overall)
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
EricTighe
MVP
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:13 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Waldron wasn't bad at all.
Second guess the the FB dive all you want. Caleb never got him the ball.

Caleb couldn't hit the broad side of the barn Sunday. He is a rookie so we are to expect games like these.

The fact we were even that game and should have won. Stevenson is to blame. The coaches are a close second not to see him not paying attention and not calling one of those timeouts we didn't use.

We should have been blown out of that game instead we should have won. Not to sure how to come to sense of that one. I am definitely not burning down the house because of it. The team that played better won the game Sunday. That definitely wasn't us.
Post Reply