Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by little bear, Feb 24, 2014.
Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
This better? :D
You can't think McCown this year is ball control. There is NO way! Lovie handed the ball off all day long, and hardly passed.
Lets look at some stats for Josh:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/3609/josh-mccown <=== 2013 - 8.+ yards per attempt.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/1428/peyton-manning <==== 2013 - 8.3 yards per attempt.
Rex Grossman (Lovie's System):
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/4480/rex-grossman <=== 2006 (His SB year, and his best passing year) 6.65 yards per attempt.
Now if you look at Lovie's ball control, you will see that Rex is the best metric for seeing how many times he passes. In Rex's MOST passing attempt season he passed 480 times over 16 games (reg. season). That's 30 attempts per game.
Josh in 2013, passed for 224 attempts in 8 games. Now that's how many games he played. That's a little less than 30 per game. Again those aren't full games.
My point? Josh attempted the same amount of times, but had a MUCH better YPA than Rex. If you remember, Rex always dumped it to Forte. With Josh, his passes were usually 5-8 yards deep.
I'm trying to find other ways to show that Trestman has Josh passing into coverage. Yes he has better WRs, but so did Rex. He just couldn't get the ball to them.
Lovie's passing scheme was terrible. Yeah it's not HIS direct fault, but it was under him. Will Lovie allow an aggressive offense? I doubt it. He thinks the game is won on the defense.
Yes, thank god.
My 2 cents FWIW, I think Josh will look at all the offers and come back to the Bears where he thrived in our system. I don't really know that for sure but he was very comfortable here and unless he is looking for the only big payday he will ever get he elaves. But he didn't strike that way. He came across as team and definitely family first.
I hope McCown stays with the Bears. He's proven in our system.
Like my dad used to always say: "we are all just one pay check away from being homeless." To translate that to football: we are always just ONE injury away from having NO quarterback. Knowing McCown is back there is a great insurance policy, even at a higher price.
We all talked so hard about how the offense has improved. If we get our wish and the D improves greatly, we will all be crying crocodile tears if (when) Jay gets hurt and our thumbs are in our rears. That's what happened to Green Bay, they never thought Rodgers would ever get hurt, that was until they played us in that "lucky for us" game. They spent the rest of the season spiraling out of control (that is until our defense gave them a gift, but that's another story). Basically no one will be complaining if Josh steps into back up next year.
Ski, the 1 INT is all the proof you need of ball control. Manning and Wilson were ball control also; I'm not saying game manager, I'm not using ball control as a synonym for game manager, it's different. McCown was playing a classic WCO w/short safe passes that threw the WR's open that allowed them to get yac. Hell I wish Cutler played more like that, he constantly holds onto the ball to long and doesn't throw the WR open and limits the WR's yac, as well as takes to many sacks which create stupid fumbles and turn overs.
Have you ever noticed how Aaron Rogers throws to wide open WR's when they play us? I would hardly call that playing ball control. What I'm saying is that our scheme allowed him have open WRs.
Look at McCown's previous team. He is an INT machine! His days at Arizona and Oakland, he threw for 10+ INTs with less than 80 QB rating.
So is it our scheme, coaching, or McCown? Yeah it's probably a little of both, but McCown will no look as good in another system, let alone Lovie's lame ass offensive mindset.
I still don't know how you can say McCown played it safe with short safe passes. I don't see it. I see him finding open WRs, and most were 5+ yards down the field. Thats hardly the 2yd dump passes we were used to with Lovie.
McCown certainly doesn't have Cutler's arm so that could account for some of his "short game". But I think it was mostly by design and scheme related as Ski pointed out. Ric also makes a good point that frankly Cutler could learn a few things from the way JM managed the offense...like getting rid of the ball faster and protecting it better.
It's pretty much proven in my mind that JM's success last year was heavily scheme and personnel related. He is a smart guy, made clear that he loved this offense, and executed it as well as a QB with his limited arm could possibly do. I give him credit for his brains and guts out there but Trestman and a helluva surrounding cast on O played a big role. Josh has all but admitted this in a rare display of NFL humility--he knows its a "hand and glove" fit where he's at right now. Anyone who thinks that he could easily duplicate all that anywhere else (much less with Lovie's offensive ineptitude) is fooling themselves. [It wasn't all that long ago--one year precisely--that people here were saying McCown "didn't belong in the NFL".]
If some other team deludes themselves into thinking otherwise and throws "Flynn-like money" at him, then I'm sure he will be gone and I don't blame him. I just don't think it will happen. I think the amount another team may offer him (and they can't even negotiate with him until March 8th while the Bears can) will not be excessive enough to make him want to give up what he has here. Could end up being totally wrong but I believe he stays.
Didn't Lovie actually get a decent OC?
This is exactly how I see it too. One other thing. We are overpaying the backup RB position. If we're going to spend a bit of extra money on a backup, I'd rather see some of that cash go towards a proven QB backup, rather than Bush. I'm not saying overpay McCown, but it may be money well spent if we throw a bit more money his way. We can do just as well with that backup RB position if we move on from Bush and sign a less expensive guy. We will see zero dropoff in performance there. That's how I see it anyway.