don't think so. 14mil for a rb when they need a te, ilb, safety and cb and rg and backup potential starter at qb, and probably need more help at wr to boot. 14mil for a rb is something you do when the rb is going to be the focal point, 25-30+ carries. The Bears can barely find 20 carries for a rb.
I'm with Ric on this one.
Nagy simply doesn't know how to pound the rock. It's not in his blood. He's not alone in that--if Shanahan had run the ball in the 4th Q, he's be a Super Bowl winning coach right now.
Besides, Henry would be too expensive and he's probably not getting out of Tennessee anyway.
Nice idea, but I'd pass.
It is weird how some coaches fail to use the run when it would help them win. I think of Pete Carroll calling a pass play on the 1 yard line instead of running the ball with Marshawn Lynch and sealing the Super Bowl win. Instead they throw an int and lose the Super Bowl. Pass instead of run.
Regarding the Bears, I'm fine if they never have a huge running game, but they do need SOME balance - and you do need the ability to run the ball in short yardage situations. If that is not in your arsenal, then you are a screwed goose. It is a weakness. I can't understand why ANY coach would choose to not have that weapon. Nagy says he wasn't hired to run the ball. Yes. But he sure needs to be able to run the ball when it will help the passing game to be most effective. One dimensional teams do one thing well - lose. It's like trying to win the Masters with one club in your bag. Not going anywhere with THAT one.
Nagy simply doesn't know how to pound the rock. It's not in his blood. He's not alone in that--if Shanahan had run the ball in the 4th Q, he's be a Super Bowl winning coach right now.
Besides, Henry would be too expensive and he's probably not getting out of Tennessee anyway.
Nice idea, but I'd pass.
It is weird how some coaches fail to use the run when it would help them win. I think of Pete Carroll calling a pass play on the 1 yard line instead of running the ball with Marshawn Lynch and sealing the Super Bowl win. Instead they throw an int and lose the Super Bowl. Pass instead of run.
Regarding the Bears, I'm fine if they never have a huge running game, but they do need SOME balance - and you do need the ability to run the ball in short yardage situations. If that is not in your arsenal, then you are a screwed goose. It is a weakness. I can't understand why ANY coach would choose to not have that weapon. Nagy says he wasn't hired to run the ball. Yes. But he sure needs to be able to run the ball when it will help the passing game to be most effective. One dimensional teams do one thing well - lose. It's like trying to win the Masters with one club in your bag. Not going anywhere with THAT one.
Another great example.
Sometimes NFL HCs, even really good ones like Carroll and Shanny, out-think themselves trying to fool the opposition. And it blows up in their face.
Nagy simply doesn't know how to pound the rock. It's not in his blood. He's not alone in that--if Shanahan had run the ball in the 4th Q, he's be a Super Bowl winning coach right now.
Besides, Henry would be too expensive and he's probably not getting out of Tennessee anyway.
Nice idea, but I'd pass.
It is weird how some coaches fail to use the run when it would help them win. I think of Pete Carroll calling a pass play on the 1 yard line instead of running the ball with Marshawn Lynch and sealing the Super Bowl win. Instead they throw an int and lose the Super Bowl. Pass instead of run.
Regarding the Bears, I'm fine if they never have a huge running game, but they do need SOME balance - and you do need the ability to run the ball in short yardage situations. If that is not in your arsenal, then you are a screwed goose. It is a weakness. I can't understand why ANY coach would choose to not have that weapon. Nagy says he wasn't hired to run the ball. Yes. But he sure needs to be able to run the ball when it will help the passing game to be most effective. One dimensional teams do one thing well - lose. It's like trying to win the Masters with one club in your bag. Not going anywhere with THAT one.
When you go deep into the playoffs, you end up facing premiere defenses who will try to take away what you do best. And will succeed at doing it to one extent or another. When that happens, you are screwed unless you can attack your opponent's defense by doing something outside of your typical scheme.
Being able to tee off with your O-line blocking and gain 1-5 yards when you need it via the running game gives you a lot of flexibility in your offensive game plan. Because the opposing defense is forced to respect that ability and keep a minimum number of players in the box on any given play. Because, if they don't, they risk giving up an automatic 1st down via a run.
It is weird how some coaches fail to use the run when it would help them win. I think of Pete Carroll calling a pass play on the 1 yard line instead of running the ball with Marshawn Lynch and sealing the Super Bowl win. Instead they throw an int and lose the Super Bowl. Pass instead of run.
Regarding the Bears, I'm fine if they never have a huge running game, but they do need SOME balance - and you do need the ability to run the ball in short yardage situations. If that is not in your arsenal, then you are a screwed goose. It is a weakness. I can't understand why ANY coach would choose to not have that weapon. Nagy says he wasn't hired to run the ball. Yes. But he sure needs to be able to run the ball when it will help the passing game to be most effective. One dimensional teams do one thing well - lose. It's like trying to win the Masters with one club in your bag. Not going anywhere with THAT one.
Another great example.
Sometimes NFL HCs, even really good ones like Carroll and Shanny, out-think themselves trying to fool the opposition. And it blows up in their face.
Not to derail things but that call by Carroll was the correct call in every way given the state of the game. That had like a 1% chance to go bad and a 99% to either score or just be an incomplete pass (which would have stopped the clock). It just happened the DB made a big play at the right time. Sometimes you can do everything right and have it still go bad. The criticism of that call is just Captain Hindsight stuff.
Back to the thread, I wouldn't take Henry unless his offensive line is coming with him.
Sometimes NFL HCs, even really good ones like Carroll and Shanny, out-think themselves trying to fool the opposition. And it blows up in their face.
Not to derail things but that call by Carroll was the correct call in every way given the state of the game. That had like a 1% chance to go bad and a 99% to either score or just be an incomplete pass (which would have stopped the clock). It just happened the DB made a big play at the right time. Sometimes you can do everything right and have it still go bad. The criticism of that call is just Captain Hindsight stuff.
Back to the thread, I wouldn't take Henry unless his offensive line is coming with him.
Gotta disagree with you there and I think your view is a minority one.
It was 2nd down on the 1 yard line with 25 seconds to go and a timeout in hand. He had a punishing RB--easily the best short yardage back in the NFL at the time--too. I don't see how you can justify throwing the ball there. Too many things can go wrong--tipped pass, sack, holding penalty, etc.
The Seahawks could have run TWICE and still had a 4th down shot to throw if needed. Terrible, terrible, terrible decision IMO.
But, as you said, back to the thread......I agree that Tennessee's success in 2019 was due to Henry, a top-notch OL, and Tannehill also playing lights out. Don't think the Bears can duplicate that just by adding Henry.
Sometimes NFL HCs, even really good ones like Carroll and Shanny, out-think themselves trying to fool the opposition. And it blows up in their face.
Not to derail things but that call by Carroll was the correct call in every way given the state of the game. That had like a 1% chance to go bad and a 99% to either score or just be an incomplete pass (which would have stopped the clock). It just happened the DB made a big play at the right time. Sometimes you can do everything right and have it still go bad. The criticism of that call is just Captain Hindsight stuff.
Back to the thread, I wouldn't take Henry unless his offensive line is coming with him.
I understand the argument. The Pats were in a goal line defense just daring Seattle to pass. But the Seahawks were averaging almost 6 yards a carry in that game. Marshawn Lynch was virtually unstoppable. Check that. Not virtually. He WAS unstoppable. The TD was there. Just don't out think it. Give the rock to Marshawn, grab the TD and take the Lombardi home. No way Lynch would have been stopped there.
Not to derail things but that call by Carroll was the correct call in every way given the state of the game. That had like a 1% chance to go bad and a 99% to either score or just be an incomplete pass (which would have stopped the clock). It just happened the DB made a big play at the right time. Sometimes you can do everything right and have it still go bad. The criticism of that call is just Captain Hindsight stuff.
Back to the thread, I wouldn't take Henry unless his offensive line is coming with him.
Gotta disagree with you there and I think your view is a minority one.
It was 2nd down on the 1 yard line with 25 seconds to go and a timeout in hand. He had a punishing RB--easily the best short yardage back in the NFL at the time--too. I don't see how you can justify throwing the ball there. Too many things can go wrong--tipped pass, sack, holding penalty, etc.
The Seahawks could have run TWICE and still had a 4th down shot to throw if needed. Terrible, terrible, terrible decision IMO.
But, as you said, back to the thread......I agree that Tennessee's success in 2019 was due to Henry, a top-notch OL, and Tannehill also playing lights out. Don't think the Bears can duplicate that just by adding Henry.
It is also worth mentioning that although it is true that Lynch had averaged 4.2 yards per carry to that point in the game, "average" statistics often hide important information. In this case the 4.2 yards per carry statistic hides two critical pieces of information:
With 10:14 left in the first quarter, Seattle had a third down and needed two yards for a first down at their own twenty-four yard line. They had Lynch run the ball and New England’s short yardage defense stopped him for no gain, forcing Seattle to punt on fourth down.
With 11:51 left in the third quarter, Seattle had a third down and needed one yard for a first down at the New England eight-yard line. They had Lynch run the ball, and New England’s short yardage defense stopped him for no gain, forcing Seattle to settle for a field goal on fourth down.
In other words, twice before in short yardage situations in this game, the Patriot’s defense had stopped Lynch for no gain. With the Seahawks needing just one yard for a winning touchdown, the Patriots would be using that same short-yardage defense, making the success of a Lynch running play anything but certain. Hence the decision to pass on second down, as that had a reasonable chance of success, and if it was unsuccessful, still left open the option of running on the third and fourth downs.
For those who argue that Seahawks should have run the ball, where would you have liked them to run it? There are eight defenders in the box against six blockers, and they have leverage based on alignment against a possible inside zone from shotgun.
Here’s what Russell Wilson saw at the time. There’s nowhere to run.
(Defenders circled in yellow are in man coverage.)
This isn’t about passions, and it isn’t about statistical mumbo-jumbo. It’s about arithmetic.
Under the most pro-Beast set of assumptions, rushing may have been the better play but by the slimmest of margins (0.3 percentage points). Under a more pro-Gostkowski set of assumptions, passing may have been the best play by up to 3 percentage points.
But we’re still discussing marginal improvements in odds. Pick which assumptions you like; it doesn’t really matter. Carroll’s decision wasn’t the epically bad call many have made it out to be.
Not to derail things but that call by Carroll was the correct call in every way given the state of the game. That had like a 1% chance to go bad and a 99% to either score or just be an incomplete pass (which would have stopped the clock). It just happened the DB made a big play at the right time. Sometimes you can do everything right and have it still go bad. The criticism of that call is just Captain Hindsight stuff.
Back to the thread, I wouldn't take Henry unless his offensive line is coming with him.
Gotta disagree with you there and I think your view is a minority one.
It was 2nd down on the 1 yard line with 25 seconds to go and a timeout in hand. He had a punishing RB--easily the best short yardage back in the NFL at the time--too. I don't see how you can justify throwing the ball there. Too many things can go wrong--tipped pass, sack, holding penalty, etc.
The Seahawks could have run TWICE and still had a 4th down shot to throw if needed. Terrible, terrible, terrible decision IMO.
But, as you said, back to the thread......I agree that Tennessee's success in 2019 was due to Henry, a top-notch OL, and Tannehill also playing lights out. Don't think the Bears can duplicate that just by adding Henry.
Just as many things can go wrong on a running play. Bad exchange, fumble, loss of yardage, penalty, etc. We're assuming a run play would have been effective...it might not have been.
Gotta disagree with you there and I think your view is a minority one.
It was 2nd down on the 1 yard line with 25 seconds to go and a timeout in hand. He had a punishing RB--easily the best short yardage back in the NFL at the time--too. I don't see how you can justify throwing the ball there. Too many things can go wrong--tipped pass, sack, holding penalty, etc.
The Seahawks could have run TWICE and still had a 4th down shot to throw if needed. Terrible, terrible, terrible decision IMO.
But, as you said, back to the thread......I agree that Tennessee's success in 2019 was due to Henry, a top-notch OL, and Tannehill also playing lights out. Don't think the Bears can duplicate that just by adding Henry.
Just as many things can go wrong on a running play. Bad exchange, fumble, loss of yardage, penalty, etc. We're assuming a run play would have been effective...it might not have been.
Sure, but less likely. Holding calls, false starts, etc are more likely on a pass play. So is a significant loss (sack). I'd argue that a turnover (tipped pass, sack-fumble, bobbled pass) is more common too.
Dunno but seems to me when you have the NFL's top RB and need only a yard (with 2-3 shots to win), I think running the ball is the way to go.